openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexandro Colorado <>
Subject Re: OOXML
Date Sat, 02 Aug 2014 14:24:07 GMT
The Support that is done is to receieve OOXML not to produce them, the
discussion issue would be to support legacy formats like .doc or .xls.

I still dont see a point to generate OOXML and most people dont care
as long as they can send in office native formats.

I never heard someone saying, please send it on docx, your doc is a
closed binary format.

On 8/2/14, Peter Kelly <> wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2014, at 2:42 pm, Rory O'Farrell <> wrote:
>> For information:
> An interesting article. This brings to mind a few issues I've been thinking
> about for a while:
> - I think the rather extreme anti-OOXML stance that some take can be
> counterproductive. I certainly hold the view that ODF is a superior standard
> in many respects (though not all), however there are circumstances where it
> makes sense for a given piece of software to support both. For example they
> cite the lack of support for ODF in Google Docs and iWork; if one wants to
> develop software that will interoperate with these would require OOXML
> support.
> My take on the issue is that it's important to support both, because as much
> as we might dislike the fact, OOXML is out there and used very widely. With
> the work I'm currently doing on UX Write, I'm adding to the existing OOXML
> (specifically .docx) support with support for for ODF (.odt) and doing this
> in a common framework such that the app itself doesn't care which format the
> file is natively stored in, it will work equally well with both.
> Additionally, once I have the ODF support in, it will be possible to
> leverage this support for conversion between the two formats in both
> directions. I'll be giving a talk on this at ApacheCon EU later this year,
> and yes this framework will soon be open source - if anyone is interested in
> collaborating on it, please let me know.
> - One of the criticisms raised is that there are several different versions
> of OOXML, not all of which are entirely compatible. However this is also
> true of ODF (or at least of MS's implementation in Office 2007 and 2010; I'm
> not sure where the fault lies). One of the big questions I've been asking
> myself in the work I'm currently on ODF is whether I should have my
> implementation it save ODF 1.1 by default, or version 1.2 by default. If I
> choose the former, it will work with Office 2007 and onwards. The latter,
> only Office 2013 (I think). For someone such as myself writing a new
> implementation of the (prat of) ODF spec, and desiring compatibility with
> Office 2007 and 2010, which is the best choice?
> - I consider the use of proprietary fonts to be a separate issue from the
> standard itself. The specification is silent on the matter, so this is
> really a criticism of MS Office rather than OOXML itself. Nonetheless, it's
> an important one, and one I believe we should address by promoting the use
> of open source fonts (e.g. independently and
> in addition to the use of ODF. Perhaps these could be made available as an
> easily-distributed separate package, so that those who want to stick with MS
> Office for whatever reason could be encouraged to install & use them, for
> improved interoperability with other office suites?
> In an organisation where there are some users on MS and others on OO/LO,
> these fonts could be deployed by the IT department as part of the standard
> desktop image, and all templates created by the organisations could use
> these fonts by default, which would lead to wider usage.
> - Towards the end of the article, there's a discussion about the lack of
> support for ODF by some vendors, particularly Google and Apple. The question
> then is how do we fix that? My view is that there needs to be a migration
> path - and by that I mean not just a tool to convert documents from OOMXL to
> ODF, but the ability to go both ways, and work with either format for as
> long as necessary for the migration to complete. Most (all?) successful
> transitions I've seen have used a similar approach - Microsoft going from
> DOS to Windows, Apple going from 68k -> PPC -> Intel, and Mac OS classic ->
> OS X, and so forth.
> In the case of document formats, for a country whose government currently
> uses MS Office and OOXML that wants to make the switch to ODF and
> OpenOffice/LibreOffice/other tools, it's not going to be an overnight
> change. It could very well take several years, and during that period
> everyone in the organisation will need to have the capability to work with
> both formats. New or modified documents would in general be saved in ODF,
> but older documents as well as documents that need to be exchanged with
> people running MS Office 2007 or 2010 (which I think don't support ODF 1.2)
> would need to be in OOXML, until such time as everyone has upgraded to a
> fully-conformant version of MS Office, or switched to OpenOffice et al.
> --
> Dr. Peter M. Kelly
> Founder, UX Productivity
> PGP key:
> (fingerprint 5435 6718 59F0 DD1F BFA0 5E46 2523 BAA1 44AE 2966)

Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9  5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message