[odf-discuss] Documenting support for ODF 1.1?

[Thomas Zander]

On Saturday 02 June 2007 00:15:59 marbux wrote:
> And perhaps think a bit about the TC proving what Microsoft has been
> saying, that Microsoft can't do what they need to do using ODF, that
> ODF is the OOo specification and it won't work for them, etc. Do you
> see no problem whatsoever with that vote?

I'm in my national standards body and we had a discussion last week about 
this very subject.
The first objection was that ODF didn't have required features like 
(spreadsheet) formulas, and so ODf was unusable. We all know that this is 
nothing but an easy target. (and soon to be false)
Naturally, after drilling down to the real issue it was portrayed quite 
different. The point stated was that when ODF started MS was invited but 
they didn't join because Sun made clear that we would start with the OOo 
1.0 fileformat as a base. Since then there is little left of that base, 
but MS still has the real idea that they can't possibly back ODF since 
that would be defeat of the greatest magnitude. To adopt the fileformat 
of their competitor.

Its all political, and your assertion that MS can't convert their lists to 
ODF is plainly false (and you know it). I'm also convinced that 
converting back (roundtripping) is no problem, making your objections 
baseless and the only reason that MS can get more FUD ammo.

-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070602/07ed4d76/attachment-0001.pgp