[odf-discuss] .ott file format

[Damon Anderson]

Actually the most important point you made was the dependence on the  
extension as in Windows. I have to use MS so often that I forget that many  
of it's quirks are un-necessary.

Point taken.

-Damon

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 02:11:37 +0700, Thomas Zander <zander at kde.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday 20 February 2007 19:10, Mirko Nasato wrote:
>> Russell Ossendryver wrote:
>> > None of the online apps, i.e. Google Docs, Zoho and others can handle
>> > it. The ODF
>> > pluggins also cannot handle .ott The ODF viewers also have problems
>> > with the format.
>>
>> It would be trivial IMO for these apps to support "ott" as well, as
>> Thomas mentioned it is basically the same thing as an "odt".  They
>> probably just need to recognise the different mime type (each
>> OpenDocument archive has a 'mimetype' entry describing its type.)
>
> That's just the point; its not a different mimetype. But its being  
> reported as
> something different.
> Think of it like me inventing .txd  for dutch text instead of the
> standard .txt
> It might sound nice, but it stands in the way of interoperability.
>
>> > In general .ott will be a hindrance to inter-operatability. An issue
>> > with OO will be filed suggesting that all documents be save in .odt
>>
>> Can't see why OpenOffice.org should remove a feature that's probably
>> useful to many people honestly.  I think it should be up to the other
>> apps to support "ott".
>
> Nobody is saying templates are not useful. That's besides the point.
> OpenOffice has named the 'thing' something other then what the rest of  
> the
> world knows the same thing as.  And now you want the rest of the world to
> learn that second name just to stay compatible with OOo?
>



-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/