![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Please go to m$ and ask if m$office is compatible with the ODF standard of LO
nabbler wrote
Please go to m$ and ask if m$office is compatible with the ODF standard of
LO
THAT is exactly the problem! There should never be an "ODF standard of LO".
If OASIS (the organization that defines the ODF standard) is not able to
keep pace and improve on the document's definition to make it a valid open
document standard, then the de facto standard will ALWAYS be the MS file
formats...
On the other hand if LO/TDF keeps improving and pushing the ODF format but
OASIS does not publish the specifications, how can you expect any other
office suite (including MS Office) to be compatible???
ODF has a clear path forward, and is actively maintained by OASIS. There
is an ODF 1.0 which is an ISO standard, and an ODF 1.2 which is in the
process of becoming an ISO standard (backward compatible with ODF 1.0).
Standard definitions, by their own nature, are moving slowly. This is
the reason why LibreOffice is compatible with both ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.2.
Microsoft OOXML, on the other hand, has never been implemented according
to the standard ISO definition, and is not even actively maintained by
ECMA (because ECMA is not focused on document standards as much as OASIS
is). Unfortunately, in the market there are more OOXML documents than
ODF documents, but this does not make OOXML format a standard.
LibreOffice makes every possible effort to be interoperable with all
Microsoft Office proprietary document formats, because this is what
users are asking (so, the answer to the original question is YES).
On the other hand, Microsoft makes every possible effort to make OOXML
not interoperable, which means that maintaining compatibility is like
trying to shoot a pheasant while driving a motorbike on a rough path
with the eyes shut.
Has Urmas changed his username ??? makes one wonder
Pete .
[snip]
I read that as "compatible with the ODF standard, as implemented in
LO." I.e.: LO uses the ODF standard. Does MS Office?
Did I read that wrong? Or does LO not properly implement the ODF
standard?
Regards,
Jim
Hi Jim, all
Jim Seymour wrote
I read that as "compatible with the ODF standard, as implemented in
LO." I.e.: LO uses the ODF standard. Does MS Office?Did I read that wrong? Or does LO not properly implement the ODF
standard?
As Italo mentioned LO is backwards compatible with all ODF specifications.
But since LO is pushing the ODF file format, the current LO implementation
is more advanced than the current approved OASIS standard (e.g. LO supports
font embedding)
So it's not a case that LO is not implementing the existing ODF standards
but that it is already improving on them (in an open manner, unlike MS XML).
So OASIS has to catch up 
Hope this makes it clear 
Hi Jim, all
Jim Seymour wrote
> I read that as "compatible with the ODF standard, as implemented
> in LO." I.e.: LO uses the ODF standard. Does MS Office?
>
> Did I read that wrong? Or does LO not properly implement the ODF
> standard?As Italo mentioned LO is backwards compatible with all ODF
specifications. But since LO is pushing the ODF file format, the
current LO implementation is more advanced than the current
approved OASIS standard (e.g. LO supports font embedding)
No offense intended, but that's weasel-word way of saying LO is
non-standard.
So it's not a case that LO is not implementing the existing ODF
standards but that it is already improving on them (in an open
manner, unlike MS XML). So OASIS has to catch up
OASIS establishes the standards, no? If such is the case: What
you've written, above, is what we call "putting the cart before the
horse." And that's putting the best possible light on it.
To be clear: I have no problem with LO implementing non-standard
behaviour, but that behaviour *must* be optional, with the switches
that enable it clearly noted as such.
Hope this makes it clear
Disappointingly so, if I understood correctly what you wrote, and if
what you wrote is accurate.
But perhaps I've misunderstood? In which case: Disregard my
criticisms.
Regards,
Jim
Hi Jim,
...
As Italo mentioned LO is backwards compatible with all ODF
specifications. But since LO is pushing the ODF file format, the
current LO implementation is more advanced than the current
approved OASIS standard (e.g. LO supports font embedding)No offense intended, but that's weasel-word way of saying LO is
non-standard.
Maybe it is just a layman stating what he thinks LO is doing.
My understanding as a normal/basic user of LO is that it supports the different ODF standards which exist, some of them approved by OASIS and others not yet approved.
E.g. in writer you can select the ODF version standard in "Options/Load/Save/General" see also:
https://help.libreoffice.org/swriter/cui/ui/optsavepage/odfversion?Language=en-US&System=WIN&Version=4.2#bm_id810266
Werner
Jim Seymour wrote
No offense intended, but that's weasel-word way of saying LO is
non-standard.
I can't figure out how calling someone a weasel can be *not* offensive...
I'm not affiliated to TDF/LO so this is just my opinion and I don't have any
advantage in convincing anyone to use LO/ODF and therefore no need to
"weasel-word" anyone.
You have options to save in ODF 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 (according to OASIS
standards)
By default LO is set to save in ODF 1.2 (extended) which means that yes,
TDF/LO is "putting the cart before the horse."
Personally, I'm glad it does.
Regards,
Pedro
Hi
E-letter's post was somewhat confusing. ODF 1.2 is used by many
programs and suites and is implemented almost identically in all of
them.
You can even post bug-reports in the various programs and suites if
you do find any difference between implementation and written
specification. Errr, except that posting bug-reports against MS
products is not so easy.
LibreOffice does use the ODF 1.2 and that did become an ISO standard a
couple of years ago. I'm sure we celebrated it on this mailing list.
It's the "ODF 1.2 (extended)" that is still being developed by OASIS
and is not yet an ISO standard. Apparently that is part of the new
standard, presumably due to be called the 1.3 when it gets far enough
in it's development process.
OASIS is an organisation made from representatives from several
hundred different organisations. Each organisation involved is
limited to only having fair representation equal to all other
organisations involved. So, no single organisation can have too much
power or control over OASIS. It's not the type of organisation that
allows a single company's reps to become chair-persons of several
sub-committees and/or then manipulate meetings to push their own
agenda through!
Files using a newer version of ODF can be successfully opened in
programs and suites that only use the older versions of the standard
but will just be missing some of the functionality. Files using an
older version of ODF can open just fine in programs and suites using
the newer standard. So it's very different from MS's OOXML (such as
DocX, XlsX, PptX etc) in both directions! This is another reason why
ODF is already rapidly increasing in popularity for longer-term
storage of documents.
If you go to
Tools - Options - "Save/Load"
Then you will see you can change the default format down from
ODF 1.2 (extended)
to
ODF 1.2
or
ODF 1.1/1.0
You can also choose to set the default format to MS formats although
we generally recommend agaisnt doing that. If you do go for it then
please use the older MS format because it's more stable across a wider
range of programs and suites whereas OOXML can sometimes be fussy
about which version of MS Office it needs to be viewed in.
However, as e-letter pointed out, the problems of incompatibility are
almost entirely due to MS's apparent inability to implement their own
or anyone else's formats. All other suites and programs can happily
share files with each other in almost any format.
Regards from
Tom
Hi Jim,
[snip]
My understanding as a normal/basic user of LO is that it supports
the different ODF standards which exist, some of them approved by
OASIS and others not yet approved.E.g. in writer you can select the ODF version standard in
"Options/Load/Save/General" see also:
https://help.libreoffice.org/swriter/cui/ui/optsavepage/odfversion?Language=en-US&System=WIN&Version=4.2#bm_id810266
One would hope the standard behaviour is to write things in the
"officially standard" way.
Regards,
Jim
[snip]
My apologies. Bad choice of terms on an international mailing list 
Using "weasel words" does not one a weasel make :). It describes a
use of language, or phraseology, not the individual. Better phrasing
would have been "that's just another way of saying..."
Tho I suppose one who habitually employs weasel-wording might
reasonably be suspected of being a weasel
Regards,
Jim
You can select the default ODF document format from the Options menu.
You can choose between ODF 1.0/1.1, ODF 1.2 (this is the standard ODF
1.2 implementation), ODF 1.2 Extended Compatibility Mode, and ODF 1.2
Extended with LibreOffice Additional Format Related Features.
LibreOffice is the reference ODF implementation, and as such is fully
supporting the document standard, and provides compatibility options.
In data sabato 15 marzo 2014 13:34:01, pete nikolic ha scritto:
Has Urmas changed his username ??? makes one wonder
I think so. In fact, its address is inpost(or)@gmail.com
The debunker is back.
Jim Seymour wrote
Pedro wrote:
So it's not a case that LO is not implementing the existing ODF
standards but that it is already improving on them (in an open
manner, unlike MS XML). So OASIS has to catch upOASIS establishes the standards, no? If such is the case: What
you've written, above, is what we call "putting the cart before the
horse." And that's putting the best possible light on it.
This is not how the ODF standard is developed. As Italo has indicated it
happens slowly over a long time, and there are various reasons for this.
There is a statement on the OASIS website (which unfortunately I cannot find
at present) which indicates that in order for a new feature to be included
in ODF-Next by OASIS, it must first be implemented in a few different pieces
of software e.g., Apache OO, LO, and AbiWord (2+ or 3+ implementations from
memory). ODF needs to be practical (based on real-world use cases) and
community-driven rather than a theoretical specification developed in
isolation by a chosen few.
TomD wrote
LibreOffice does use the ODF 1.2 and that did become an ISO standard a
couple of years ago.
No. The information provided by Italo up-thread is correct:
italovignoli wrote
... ODF 1.2 which is in the process of becoming an ISO standard (backward
compatible with ODF 1.0). Standard definitions, by their own nature, are
moving slowly.
Details on milestones in the ISO/IEC approval process here
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_standardization#OpenDocument_1.2>
.
Best wishes, Owen.
Owen Genat wrote
No. The information provided by Italo up-thread is correct:
italovignoli wrote... ODF 1.2 which is in the process of becoming an ISO standard (backward
compatible with ODF 1.0). Standard definitions, by their own nature, are
moving slowly.
Interesting. This means that ODF 1.2 is an OASIS approved standard since
2011 but isn't yet an ISO standard... So, I apologize to OASIS It's the
ISO standard that takes ages...
This just proves my point (going back to the comment by nabbler) that it if
the bureaucracy takes so long, you can't really blame MS (or any other
vendor) for not being 100% compatible.
In fact it is impossible that any other office suite produces 100%
compatible ODF documents since by definition LO is one of the products
defining the ODF characteristics...
Absurdly Microsoft (as an OASIS member) could also legitimately be producing
another ODF 1.2 extended file format (valid under OASIS) but completely
different from the one in LO...
So, the question "if m$office is compatible with the ODF standard of LO "
doesn't make sense
No. Compatibility is measured against the standard (ISO ODF 1.0 / OASIS
ODF 1.2). and not with the ODF 1.2 Extended provided by LibreOffice.
Microsoft ODF implementation in MS Office 2013 is a very good one, and
no one is blaming Microsoft for this.
On the contrary, Microsoft can be blamed for their "intentional" ODF 1.1
- which has never been considered a standard, not even at OASIS -
implementation in Microsoft Office 2010, because this was done to kill
interoperability with OOo.
In addition, Microsoft is providing a different implementation of their
non standard OOXML document format for every Microsoft Office release,
and this is also intentional to kill imteroperability.
It seems that only yourself and IV (in terms of responses, of course!)
understood correctly. Once again, these types of questions expose a
strategic weakness of those seeking to see open source software
increase in popularity.
The original question asked whether LO is compatible with m$, hence
the reciprocal question as the answer.
It is not known why the original poster (HB) asked this (silly)
question: is (s)he an m$ fan, read elsewhere that LO is "compatible"
with m$ the therefore concludes that LO is a m$ to create perfect m$
documents without having to pay the m$ tax ("licence fee")? If the
answer is (hopefully) no, then the poster should ask LO about
compatibility with m$, but instead compatibility with odf (and also
ask m$ the same question!).
If the original poster and other m$-fans want perfect m$ documents (a
laughable concept, considering the poor quality of m$o, but that's
another discussion), they should please stop complaining, stop asking
and simply pay for a legal copy of m$!!! LO is not an m$-clone! It
(rightly) has nothing to do with m$! The native file format of LO is
odf, _not_ m$!!!
It was amazing to read that there should never be an odf standard,
because LO is so perfect with the rapid introduction of gratuitous new
features (10-year bugs? Who cares about quality, when we have a new
feature to rush out now!). This is the exact strategy of m$, netscape,
etc. in the past: embrace (the standard); extend (the standard);
extinguish (kill the standard!). Apparently, Oasis are at fault for
being slow, methodical and serious about standards development (by
definition, a rigourous, tedious and necessarily time-consuming job);
therefore LO should continue to "improve". As commented elsewhere,
such an opinion is ignorant of the concept of the standard development
process...
If the default behaviour of LO is to produce documents _beyond_ the
current odf standard, it's a bad idea, equivalent to the "extend the
standard" mentality as described previously. If LO wants to see the
development of odf (not necessarily the increase in LO usage: the two
objectives are not equal!), so that the strategic benefit of true
document compatibility is maintained, the odf standard must be the
default. Users must then be made aware of any non-standard features
(writing a list of these "new features" in the "release notes" is not
enough and merely an expedient action).
Those interested in the odf standard for future document compability
and flexibility want to be able to write an odf text document today in
lowriter, an openformula compliant ods spreadsheet tomorrow in localc
and be able to use (in theory, not confirmed) odf-compliant gnumeric,
or abiword, or kwrite, etc. 10 years from now to open those documents.
Otherwise, what is the purpose of the odf standard?
[snip]
There is a statement on the OASIS website (which
unfortunately I cannot find at present) which indicates that in
order for a new feature to be included in ODF-Next by OASIS, it
must first be implemented in a few different pieces of software
e.g., Apache OO, LO, and AbiWord (2+ or 3+ implementations from
memory). ODF needs to be practical (based on real-world use cases)
and community-driven rather than a theoretical specification
developed in isolation by a chosen few.
[snip]
Given the way OASIS is organized (I'm assuming the description given
previously is essentially accurate in the important aspects):
"developed in isolation by a chosen few" is a non-issue, right out of
the gate.
Practical implementations of a proposed standard are wonderful, but,
before it's part of the standard, documents written with such
extensions are, _by definition_, non-standard formats.
In my opinion: LibréOffice ought not be writing documents, by
default, in non-standard formats.
I am disappointed to find that it does To add insult-to-injury:
"1.2 Extended" is, in my opinion, misleading. It does not clearly
indicate that what it really means is "1.2 with new and improved, but
non-standard, features." I'm an IT guy with many, many years
experience, and, even had I noticed that buried option on my own, it
would not have occurred to me to wonder "I wonder if that means it's
non-standard?"
Regards,
Jim
[snip]
In fact it is impossible that any other office suite produces 100%
compatible ODF documents since by definition LO is one of the
products defining the ODF characteristics...
[snip]
Once again: Putting the cart before the horse. LO does not "define"
the standard. OASIS or ISO (depending upon one's perspective, I
suppose) defines the standard. LO's responsibility is to faithfully
*implement* the standard.
LO might reasonably also play testbed for proposed new standards, but
that ought to be optional behaviour, explicitly chosen by the
user(s), not default, out-of-the-box behaviour. At least in *my*
opinion.
Regards,
Jim