[odf-discuss] What is actually necessary and found only in OpenXML?

[M. Fioretti]

On Fri, May 25, 2007 07:25:13 AM +0100, Chris Puttick
(cputtick at gmail.com) wrote:

> Excellent question. No idea. I would assume no feature is missing that
> would be detrimental; however the answer from Microsoft/Ecma will
> almost certainly be centred on OOXML's "wondrous" legacy conversion
> ability.

Of course. But I still think it is essential to be sure that your/mine
assumption is 100% correct. Because in that case we can say:

1) OK, OpenXML is acceptable by PAs always and ONLY to long-term
   archive or process automatically files ALREADY EXISTING in the
   archives of those PAs (assuming it doesn't create the legal problem
   you mention, IANAL either...)

2) Only ODF is allowed for production of NEW files or for document
   interchange between PAs and businesses/private citizens. (as a .doc
   /xls/ppt replacement, that is, PDF is for other uses)

... even if OpenXML becomes an ISO standard :-P

I am convinced this is the most effective strategy, given the way
things are going. Make OpenXML "socially" unacceptable as smoking in a
very small closed room in front of a pregnant woman and other
children. Convince government that it wouldn't matter less if MS has
got the ISO label, it is still absolutely necessary, for all the
economic, political, cultural, technical reasons we all know very well
that NEW (=not coming from conversion) OpenXML files are not
acceptable, period.

I will also post this to the ODF Alliance tonight. But in order for
this argument to stand, we need to be sure that there is nothing which
is really necessary asap for new documents that OpenXML can do and ODF not.

We must be sure they cannot say "thanks to this feature of THE
OPENXML STANDARD, no matter what software uses it, PAs may save tons of money
very soon"

	Marco