docx format troubles

users
#1

Hi,

I made a translation of a docx file. Just copied and pasted
'special/without formatting' the translated text over each segment of
the original text, in order to keep the initial formatting.
The file format of the document was docx, and I never changed that -as
far as I know at least, I'm aware that there are several versions of
the docx format.
When I send the translated document back to the person that asked me
to translate it, he couldn't open it.
According to the info in the Save dialog, the original document would
be a 2007 XML docx file. According to Mac file info, it's an Office
Open XML (I suppose that's the same). The document I sent back, has
the same format.

So what went wrong?
In LibO, I can open de document without any problem.
What can I do when this happens again?
I sent another copy in good old doc format, but I suppose I should
also recommend not using docx, and propose a download of LibO to solve
such compatibility issues.

Thanks for your help...

#2

Hi :slight_smile:
MS Office is temporarily having troubles with security issues. It might be
that the person you are sending to has troubles with .docx, .doc and .rtfs
from other people too. Apparently a patch was released by MS on Tuesady to
fix the security issue but that patch might be causing this problem.

On the other hand it could be a LibreOffice problem. The 3.4.x branch is
often better at .docX format than the 3.3.x branch. A lot of programs have
trouble with the .docX format so it's probably better to stick with the .doc
format.

The best answer is to give them the link to download LibreOffice so that
they can use the much safer Odt format. MS Office can't read the newer Odt
format that LibreOffice and most other programs use by default. People
would download something to read a Pdf so why not for Odt? :wink: I think
people worry until they find they can keep MS Office as their default Office
Suite but still have LO alongside it for the types of things that MS Office
can't do so well (Draw, Math, Export to Pdf, not constantly running into
security problems, etc).

So, i would give them a .doc version, maybe a Pdf too and the download link
so they can get LibreOffice.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#3

Always send back docx/xlsx/pptx as doc/xls/ppt. All flavours of Microsoft Office fully support any of these heritage file formats and this office suite can handle them much better. There is no technical reason to share docx with users of MS Office.
Unfortunately, the LibreOffice project leads believe that broken support of broken file formats somehow serves the user.

#4

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
It does make life a lot easier to stick to MS's legacy formats.  Gradually moving people to OpenDocument Formats would be great and is likely to happen anyway as LO's market share increases.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#5

You should send in odf and tell your recipient to use LO. If the
recipient cannot use LO you should buy m$ and continue to use m$
formats. Then when there are compatibility issues, you write to m$
technical support.

Do you expect the recipient to write to m$ and say: "I received this
m$ file and I can't open it. The sender is using LO. M$, please change
the m$ format???

#6

Hi :slight_smile:
Easy tiger!  No need to be so hostile! 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#7

Hi Guy,

So what went wrong?

My current experience of importing and exporting docx format files is
one of hit or miss...

I have gone back to NeoOffice 3.1.2 and OpenOffice.org 3.2.1 in order to
load these files, as they seem to at least be able to give me something
to work with.

Alex

#8

I tell everyone that I deal with that MS does not support those "x" formats the same between their different version of Office. I know people who save their documents in .docx with Office 2010 and it does not work completely read by Office 2007. SO I tell them unless there is a dire need to save it in those "x" formats, use the ones that go from Office 97 through 2003. Myself, I dropped MSO at 2003, but I still have copies of MSO 2003, MSO XP, and if I can find where I put it I have MSO 97 as well. I dropped using MSO when I went to Ubuntu-Linux as my default desktop OS in Feb 2010. Dropped it from my laptops sometime after LO came out.

I am setting up an old IBM server with my last copy of XP Home [32-bit] and I have placed MSO 2003 on it, but then installed LO 3.3.x with the MSO files defaulted to LO instead of MSO. The secretary [in training] may need to learn MSO, but she will have LO on it so she can do her typing with an easier to use package.

So, promote the use of MSO files that are the legacy ones that can be used by Office 2003 or earlier. Try to get your people to stop using these flaky "x" formats.

Personally I think MS wanted to have their own formats that was their response to the creation of the ODF office file formats. ODF became the International Standards Organization "the" standard for office file formats instead of MSO's "x" formats, and then MSO spread some money around and got ISO to state there are two standards [when they normally have only one standard for each product or system]. MSO then decided that, since they would not be in control of the "open source" part of the standard, they would not fully support their open "x" formats.

#9

Hi

Hi Guy,

> So what went wrong?

My current experience of importing and exporting docx format files is
one of hit or miss...

I have gone back to NeoOffice 3.1.2 and OpenOffice.org 3.2.1 in order to
load these files, as they seem to at least be able to give me something
to work with.

Alex

I have not had any problems with -x formats with relatively simple Word
and Excel files using 3.4.x. I have some trouble with 3.3.0/1 reading
the -x format even with simple files.

As precaution I like to save any file in the appropriate odf format as
well as -x format.

#10

Am 15.09.2011 18:36, planas wrote:

As precaution I like to save any file in the appropriate odf format as
well as -x format.

ODF is the one and only important file format when *you edit* files.
PDF is the one and only important file format when you send copies of your files to arbitrary receipients for *reading*.
If, and only if, you need to *collaborate* on the same files with users of MS Office, then you have to share the old legacy file formats in order to get the best possible results.
The OOXML formats are completely obsolete. LibreOffice should be able to read that pestilence as well as possible, but it should not generate and spread it.

#11

It is rather difficult to follow this advice if the acceptance of the docx/xslx/pptx into LO is defective. Then the returned doc/xls/ppt will reflect that, unless the user manages to figure out how to correct everything in LO first [;<).

#12

Hi :slight_smile:
Yes, but in the original question in this thread it implied that the docX opened with no problems, it was only the saving back into that format that caused troubles.  Generally it would be great if we could get MS Office users to send stuff in their older formats.  But in this case it seems to have been ok :slight_smile:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#13

I fear that's not entirely true. There are some facilities in later versions of Microsoft Office which can be saved in .docx etc. formats but not in .doc etc. formats. If your correspondents are making use of these facilities, that content will be lost if you convert their documents to the older file formats.

Brian Barker

#14

Hi :slight_smile:
If you were able to ring-fence about 20% of the features of MS Office then about 80% of users never stray outside that.  From what i see it's more like about 100% of users.  Most users don't even use all of that 20%.

People that are more likely to know and might even have read studies suggest it's more like 90% of users only use 10% of the features.  It would be great to have a study about this but it's difficult to avoid bias.  "Leading questions" and assumptions or misunderstandings by users.  Various guys think they always uses the most sophisticated new features but in fact never do some even block newer or more advanced features because of the 'problems' they have caused.

Still, i agree with the rest of the project (outside of the Users List) that we need to be better at both read & writes of the newer MS formats just to hold on to the share of the market we have at the moment let alone try to increase that.

It's not a surprise to hear that a University that might normally champion intellectual freedom and freedom of speech is so clueless or mis-informed about a computer related issue that they end up forcing people into supporting a big profit-making company.  Normally if a university recommends a product they will have received funding or some other good deal from the company.  In this case the university is probably not getting anything like that.

It would be nice if TDF could form a team that does what MS do and goes out to put our side of the story out to selected companies and such-like. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#15

Am 16.09.2011 03:10, Brian Barker wrote:

I fear that's not entirely true. There are some facilities in later
versions of Microsoft Office which can be saved in .docx etc. formats
but not in .doc etc. formats. If your correspondents are making use of
these facilities, that content will be lost if you convert their
documents to the older file formats.

But then LibreOffice does not support these facilities neither. The supported features in MSO before 2007 and LibO/OOo are very close and so are the file formats. The main purpose of OOXML is incompatibility while having something with "Office" and "Open" and "XML" in the name.

#16

Am 16.09.2011 03:10, Brian Barker wrote:

I fear that's not entirely true. There are some facilities in later
versions of Microsoft Office which can be saved in .docx etc. formats
but not in .doc etc. formats. If your correspondents are making use of
these facilities, that content will be lost if you convert their
documents to the older file formats.

But then LibreOffice does not support these facilities neither. The supported features in MSO before 2007 and LibO/OOo are very close and so are the file formats. The main purpose of OOXML is incompatibility while having something with "Office" and "Open" and "XML" in the name.

#17

There's one major problem with that. In Windows 7 (and it may have been the case in Vista) the option "hide extensions for known file types" is turned ON by DEFAULT so when the user of Office 2007/2010 creates a document, all they see in the title is the name of the document, not the extension so they don't even KNOW that the default document types are .???x at all.
Plenty of posts in the MS Office forums of the type: "I just bought Office 2007/2010 and my recipients (i.e. those using 2003 or prior who have NOT installed the compatibility pack) can't open documents I send them. Why?"
I don't quite know how that is got around...

#18

Hi :slight_smile:
If i have to tell someone their document got a bit garbled, i usually explain about using "Save As ..." to use the older formats and how to export as Pdf so that people can see the intention.  I have it as a copy&paste so i don't have to re-type it each time.  Some people found "Save As.." difficult to find so i even took a screen-shot to help them find it.

If people have to go elsewhere to find help on how to make documents that can be opened by everyone then they are often going to be getting some very strange FUD from people that have no clue and are not pro-LO.  At least in here we are learning different points of view. 
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#19

I hope this isn't hijacking the thread, and if so, /please /say so, and I'll repost this in a new thread.

The fact that 20% of the features of MS Office (and by implication, LO and OO.o) used almost exclusively by some 80% of the users suggests to me that OO.o should identify that 20% of features and modularize OO.o or LO or what have you to include that 20% and make the other 80% of the features available as extensions.

I'd like comments on this idea.

David Teague

#20

Hi :slight_smile:
I really like that idea a lot but i have been told it's unfeasable.  Even if we could clearly identify that 20% it would be tricky to slim the apps down that way.
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile: