![[TEST] Document Foundation Community](https://communitytest.documentfoundation.org/images/discourse-logo-sketch.png){kind=logo}
Hi 
All releases of LibreOffice have used ODF 1.2 (Extended) as the default format. I think OpenOffice and most other programs have been using it for a long time too. It's only MS Office that is still on the older 1.1/1.0 formats.
Regards from
Tom
Marc asks: How conformant is LibreOffice as a producer and consumer
of the OASIS ODF 1.2 Standard?
I don't know how to assess that. I assume it is reasonably
conformant and that most documents that happen to be produced
are satisfactory to consumers that accept ODF 1.0/1.1 also.
I don't know if there is any kind of LibreOffice inventory
that indicates what is and is not supported and what happens
when something unsupported is encountered. Also, I don't
know what deviations there might be in the ODF documents
that are produced. There is no official test suite or
any kind of conformance assessment.
The marketing-level statement of ODF 1.2 support was made
(it seems like) years ago, starting with 3.0 I think. What
I don't know is what it means *technically*. I don't know
how that would be determined. Most of what users run into
don't have much to do with the format, methinks.
I'm not saying it isn't conformant, I just don't know what
how to assess how close it is. Maybe there is a state-
ment somewhere.
Sorry.
Hi
I think there are a couple of bug-reports for deviations from the 1.2 format but probably some of that has been fixed by now.
Regards from
Tom
Hi,
Tom Davies wrote (03-10-11 02:21)
Hi
default format. I think OpenOffice and most other programs have been
using it for a long time too. It's only MS Office that is still on
the older 1.1/1.0 formats. Regards from
I think that Tom is mailing things here, that are not accurate.
Even more: I am sure:
- What is 'for a long time'?
- Is MsOffice the only application apart from LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org that (also) uses ODF?
How many times will you again be sending nice reading statements that might as well be in accurate and lead to discussion and confusion, Tom?
How many examples have we seen before?
I think it would be most helpful if you try to write things that are clear an accurate. If you have doubt: pls don't write ofr take time to really make sure first. Doing that, there may be still more than enough contributions from you left for this list.
Thanks for your careful consideration.
Hi,
Tom Davies wrote (03-10-11 02:59)
Hi
the 1.2 format but probably some of that has been fixed by now.
I think ... it is enough to point to my previous mail in this thread ..
Tom,
Cor has a point, while you are prolific and appreciated for your
dedication, you do tend to be a little quick off the mark with rather
general statements that promote FUD. Perhaps you could be a bit more
deliberative and invest additional time in researching each response.
Cor,
Perhaps you both could tone it down a bit--Tom is putting a fair effort
into his contributions.
Warm regards,
Stuart
Hi Stuart,
V Stuart Foote wrote (03-10-11 18:43)
Perhaps you both could tone it down a bit--Tom is putting a fair effort
into his contributions.
Well, looking at the - in the mean time - quite long history that 'Tom and I' have, it looks that my mails tend to become a bit more bold. So OK, you to have a point here.
On the other hand, I could already have replied to more mails from Tom that are 'a little quick off the mark with rather general statements that promote FUD' in the past two (?) weeks, say since the shameful thread about 'Base development'. It's just I have some work to do, and also keep hoping for growing insight on Tom's side
Kind regards,
Hello All,
Why isn't ODF added as an extension of HTML5?
This would define ODF as the defacto Web Standard for Files!
An ideas who could try to pursue such an agreement?
Cheers!
Jaime
It would be great if connected people could help to introduce this idea. I
hope it doesn't stay just as an idea! I'll be willing to help in the
discussions and organization, but I don't have the contacts. Anyone with
contacts willing to help?
TDF committee members who are also members of OASIS. AOO PPMC members
(I am one) but I don't have any connections to OASIS. I can post this
on the AOO lists though and see. Also if there is interest there and
at TDF there are other possible links. OSC Chairman here in the UK is
on the OASIS tech committee and I can get him involved.
Thanks to all the people who answered this. It seems whether LibreOffice is partially or completely compliant to "OASIS version 1.2" is more complicated to establish for non-dev people.
It would be interesting if OASIS had a validation site much like the W3C validation site[1] where a person could check whether their version of ODF files were "OASIS-approved". It doesn't look like there is such a location on the OASIS site.
Cheers
Marc
<orcmid comment="below" />
Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
From: Marc Paré [mailto:marc@marcpare.com]
Thanks to all the people who answered this. It seems whether LibreOffice
is partially or completely compliant to "OASIS version 1.2" is more
complicated to establish for non-dev people.
LibO is, like OOo, an extended conformance producer/consumer of
ODF1.2, in its default setup. Choosing ODF format version 1.2 in
Tools->Options->Load/Save->General makes it produce "conforming ODF
documents" as per 22.2.1.
Everything else is a bug.
There is basically schema validation available, and there are a variety
of schema verifiers. It would be good to work cooperatively to improve
them. (Schema validity assessment is not enough to know that all of the
ODF rules not baked into the schema are honored, but it is an important
first-order start.)
http://www.probatron.org:8080/officeotron/officeotron.html to the
best of my knowledge goes beyond pure schema verification, but also
e.g. checks various prose-only normative requirements (e.g. for the
zip package).
I'm not subscribed to the users list, so if you need my answer,
please Cc me.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
Thank you for the link, Thorsten (I can't CC you because Nabble doesn't allow
that)
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
LibO is, like OOo, an extended conformance producer/consumer of
ODF1.2, in its default setup. Choosing ODF format version 1.2 in
Tools->Options->Load/Save->General makes it produce "conforming ODF
documents" as per 22.2.1.
I think most users are aware of that. The funny (??) part is NONE of the ODF
documents I ever created with LO is a valid ODF 1.2 document. It makes me
wonder what was the point of making it a Standard and requesting ISO
compliance if not even LO follows the rules...
Just a thought...
Hi
As Thorsten said, almost any case of non-conformance is considered a bug.
There are some bug-reports posted about specific examples of non-conformance
which get posted when people find examples of non-conformance and feel up to
the challenge of posting a bug-report about it.
Many programs don't fully comply with their own specs. OpenSource ones tend
to try to fix that through bug-reports and such-like. We often grumble when
we find an example of a proprietary program, such as MS Office, not
complying with it's specs.
Regards from
Tom
Doesn't make sense to me: html5 and odf have two totally different scopes.
Or am I missing something obvious ?
Thanks for any clarification
Tom wrote:
Many programs don't fully comply with their own specs.
The fact that many programs do that makes it correct?
Tom wrote:
OpenSource ones tend to try to fix that through bug-reports and such-like.
We often grumble when we find an example of a proprietary program, such as
MS Office, not complying with it's specs.
The fact that you can report bugs isn't synonymous that someone will try to
fix it 
MS doesn't have to publish any specs. And most MS formats are closed source.
It is in their best interest that only their program is 100% compatible.
If you bother to create an open format so that any program can open it (and
therefore freeing you from vendor lock), any incompatibility with the
standard is bound to create problems when you try to open the document in
another program...
Hi
We are making a big fuss about very trivial differences. The OpenDocument
Format does allow for some leeway so that the various programs that
implement ODF can read documents that are not fully compliant. Each program
that implements ODF 1.2 has it's own tiny quirks and each other programs
should be able to cope with slight deviations.
Almost no-one and almost nothing is perfect. It's something to aspire to
and work towards but we have to have something workable to actually use as
we approach that.
Regards from
Tom
Hi Tom
Tom wrote:
We are making a big fuss about very trivial differences.
How do you know they are trivial? In the document I referred previously in
this topic, after conversion to ODF, which took me a few hours, opening in
Abiword 2.9.1 or Textmaker 2012 (Beta) is useless.
The only other program where the file looks _similar_ is in IBM Lotus
Symphony 3.0
So I'm not talking about trivialities... And this is a small 51 page
report...
Thanks for the two sites. I'll give them a try to see what kind of results. they get.
Cheers
Marc