[odf-discuss] What is actually necessary and found only in
mfioretti at mclink.it
Sun May 27 12:11:44 EDT 2007
background: these and the other questions I have posted in this thread
today are meant to provide me with as much material as possible for
something I *could* have the possibility to write later in the
summer. I am posting them now, before I forget or lose my notes,
because almost surely I will have zero or no time at all, due to
family and day-job issues, to follow ODF things in the next weeks.
Thanks for any feedback and of course thanks to Marbux for his very
On Fri, May 25, 2007 02:50:00 AM -1000, marbux (marbux at gmail.com)
> First, it is vital to understand that Ecma 376 (EOOXML) and
> Microsoft Office Open XML (MOOXML) are not one and the same. EOOXML
> is at best a extremely crippled subset of MOOXML.
Are there links summing this up? (the more and from more different
sources the better, of course)
> Second, it is equally as vital to understand that EOOXML is only
> read by MS Office apps, there is no method provided to write to
> EOOXML, only to MOOXML. Microsoft Office itself does not support
> EOOXML except as a one-way import communications protocol for MS
> Office; Microsoft Office does not treat it as a file format, only as
> a one-way communications protocol. There is no reference editor for
> EOOXML. MS Office users... can not save them as EOOXML.
Same question here. I have read your comment on zdnet oor whatever
that online magazine was, but are there other online sources for this?
> Is it technically possible to create a full-featured application
> that writes to that format? Yes, but there is no such product on the
> market, not even Microsoft's own.
This is true up to MS Office 2007, right? Are there any official
statements from MS as to when they will release such a version of MS
> While there is other significant functionality present in MOOXML but
> missing from the EOOXML specification, none sweeps so broadly on the
> question you pose as the markup for the new Microsoft line of
> business applications.
Meaning that "EOOXML files are interchangeable only among applications
which can talk to a MS Sharepoint server"? (even when there will be
one or more EOOXML editors)
> The unvarnished truth is that ODF is Sun Microsystem's vendor
> lock-in format. ODF does not even enable round-trip non-lossy
> interoperability among ODF apps.
This confirms the feeling I expressed here more than one year ago that
ODF is just the first, albeit mandatory, piece of broader solution,
see the OpenFile concept I mentioned in my other reply:
> This is another issue I have been raising on the TC
and the result was, if I may ask?
> I think the way forward for ODF advocates is to push for
> harmonization with MOOXML -- not EOOXML -- using ODF as the
> vocabulary for the shared functionality and Microsoft's proprietary
> stuff in a separate namespace... Here is Bray's suggestion repeated:
> "The ideal outcome would be a common shared office-XML dialect for
> the basics and it should be ODF (or a subset), since that's been
> designed and debugged... And, for the basic stuff that everybody
> uses, there'd be only one set of tags.
This looks to me as the OpenFile concept again, or a way to implement
it. What do you think?
Help *everybody* love Free Standards and Free Software
More information about the odf-discuss