[odf-discuss] A bit more detailed explanation of the AFNOR position

[Lars Noodén]

marbux wrote:
> ...
> I distinguish between DIS 29500 (Ecma 376) and Microsoft's OOXML.
> ...

I don't.  They are, of course all different specs, but they share the
common characteristics that they are not fully published, have licensing
 problems and are generally unimplementable by third parties.  Sharing
these common characteristics is enough for me to lump them together.

> ...
> ODF in its present condition is generally a non-starter for eGovernment. It
> has no interop framework whatsoever and no interop conformance
> requiremements...

Please describe this in a sentence or two.  I feel that I am being
obtuse in that I am unable to see such shortcomings.

> ... ODF is non-interoperable without lossiness, even among ODF
> apps ...

That appears from where I sit to be shortcoming in the applications not
the format.  Is there something else that we should know about there?
Random non-compliant tags, tagsets and metadata do not count.

> ... let alone with MS Office.

MS has todate never complied with an open format, specification or
protocol.  MS will *NEVER* willingly give up an open format for MS
Office, given that its current claims to profitability are based
*entirely* on income from MS Office and MS Windows.  Any full-fidelity
interoperability in the Office area, loosens vendor lock-in on Office,
which in turn loosens the lock-in on the desktop.  Most nations agree
that would be a step towards a free market in computing and this would
be good.

Any interop with MS Office is going to have to come the same way
accessibility software comes: via third parties and *in spite of* the
best efforts of MS to stop it.

Our emphasis, and that of nations wishing to retain sovereignity, should
be to focus on ODF apps.

Best regards,
-Lars