Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Crowdfunding campaign for interoperability with Microsoft® Office

Hi Raffaele, I will try to answer the most relevant point, trying to be 
as succinct as possible.

On 2/10/21 6:33 PM, Raffaele Mancuso wrote:

> > There have already been specific projects about interoperability, 
> > funded by different entities. There is a team in Hungary working full 
> > time for OOXML interoperability.

> Can't the new people we hire support and work together with the team in 
> Hungary?

Of course, Gabor Kelemen and his colleagues would be extremely happy.

> Although I fail to understand some points, for instance, how the fact 
> that a document saved by MSO can be shorter/longer somewhat implies that 
> the standard is being violated.

Short answer, yes. In the reality, Microsoft is using the most 
sophisticated resources to manage OOXML, and because of this the issue 
is terribly complex. For instance, they leverage the fact that users are 
not consistent in their approach to software, to have this reflected in 
the format (which is screwed up even more than it should).

> Then what is the purpose of Part 4 of OOXML (ISO/IEC 29500-4:2016)?
> It is titled "Transitional Features".

> Is my understanding that, by and large, OOXML Transitional = OOXML 
> Strict + Transitional Features, correct?

No, Transitional features should have been deprecated since 2010. They 
are the non standard features inherited from legacy formats.

> > By the way, the Italian law - if respected - prohibits the use of 
> > OOXML by Public Administrations, as it does not respect many 
> > standardization parametres.

> No I don't think so, given that Italian judges and the Italian judiciary 
> system are using it 
> <http://www.giustizia.lazio.it/appello.it/moduli/referenti%20informatici/Convenzione%20Giustizia%20Microsoft.pdf>. 

> The Italian Ministry of Justice is distributing OOXML files in its 
> website <https://www.giustizia.it/giustizia/it/mg_1_29_22.page> (see at 
> the bottom "REGISTRO delle richieste di accesso")
> <http://www.giustizia.lazio.it/appello.it/moduli/referenti%20informatici/Convenzione%20Giustizia%20Microsoft.pdf> 

The fact that they are using OOXML is only a demonstration that they 
ignore the issue of interoperability. According to the currect version 
of AgID guidelines for the implementation of the digital administration 
code, a standard format must have several characteristics, which are not 
met by OOXML (transparent development, versioning, consistent behaviour 
across a software release).

By the way, OOXML is used by the majority of public administrations not 
only in Italy, but worldwide. But his doesn't make OOXML a standard, or 
an interoperable format. Microsoft has the largest lobby structure 
worldwide, and it shows.

> (1) I don't agree that the increase in file size by embedding fonts 
> would be a problem. Nowadays kids download 30 GB videogames over the 
> internet.

Sure, but LibreOffice is available in areas where connectivity is not 
comparable with Italy (where connectivity is sub-optimal), and we must 
consider that we are a global project, and as such we cannot forget our 
members in those areas.

> (2) Anyway, I am thinking at maintaining a git repository with 
> substitute fonts. I had a look at them, and most of them seems to be 
> released under a license that allows redistribution. It looks to me, for 
> what I was able to see, that collecting those substitutes fonts and use 
> mscorefonts for the (few) ones missing (like Wingdings) would provide a 
> very solid base for interoperability on the font front. It may be a good 
> base for a future LibreOffice official database of substitute fonts?

Absolutely yes. There is a large number of open source fonts, which can 
be distributed without issues.

> (3) I thought more generally at handling them better. The first time I 
> opened a document that used Calibri with LibreOffice, it was not at all 
> obvious to me that the font name being displayed in italics by 
> LibreOffice meant that the font was being substituted with another one. 
> Maybe when a document uses fonts that are missing on the system, we can 
> have LibreOffice displays a message box that shows which fonts are 
> missing and which ones are being used as substitutes?

Interesting idea. We could discuss it with developers.

> I have downloaded the form to exercise GDPR rights from the Italian GDPR 
> authority 
> <https://www.garanteprivacy.it/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/1089924>, 
> which is distributed in .docx format (another counter-example to you 
> saying it's illegal).
>
> I have opened it in LibreOffice Writer and here is the result:
> The checkboxes are all messed up.

I have opened the same document, and the checkboxes are all at the right 
place (PDF attached). And I have not even used my Linux PC where I have 
configured font substitution, as Calibri would have been replaced by 
Carlito. I have used my Linux laptop.

Tomorrow I will check with LibreOffice on Windows and macOS.

Of course, the fact that the document renders in a different way is an 
issue. First of all, we should help Garante della Privacy in creating 
interoperable documents (checkboxes should be anchored as characters 
instead of being anchored to paragraphs).

> But we need to acknowledge that maybe bugs could be handled better by 
> highly-paid programmers (with crowdfunded wages, or donations).

Bugs are already handled by professional developers, but of course the 
highr the number of developers working on the bugs the higher the number 
of bugs which can be solved.

> 1. Is our position that OOXML should and can be supported? Fine, then we 
> need to find a better way to support it

OOXML support is improving with every release. Please consider that 100% 
support is impossible, not even MS Office handles all OOXML files in a 
perfect way.

> 2. Is our position that the entire OOXML standard is a messed up 
> standard, and so it is okay for us to not support it fully? Fine as well.

This is impossible, because of the number of people using OOXML.

> We have to remove "LO is compatible with Microsoft Word" from website.

This is also impossible, LibreOffice is compatible with the majority of 
OOXML documents.

> We also have to pull out LibreOffice from this WIkipedia page: 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_supports_Office_Open_XML 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_supports_Office_Open_XML>. 

This is also impossible. By the way, Wikipedia page is managed by 
volunteers and not by us.

> Remove LibreOffice from the Transitional section and put Microsoft 
> Office on the Strict section with a note "you need to explicitly export 
> in Strict. It is the one of the last options".

LibreOffice supports both Transitional and Strict in the best possible 
way, which will never be perfect (also because OOXML changes without 
providing the necessary documentation).

> Otherwise, how can we have a talk about interoperability, and states 
> that we should use ODF for interoperability?

The situation is not black & white, but has all the shades of all the 
colours in between. For sure, is more political than technical, and we 
must be active in every area. On one side, we have to support OOXML, on 
the other side, we have to educate the world around us about switching 
to ODF as a better format for interoperability.

> How many softwares do we want a format to be supported by before deeming 
> the format as interoperable?

You can have one million software supporting a format, without the 
format being interoperable at all. Interoperability is not about the 
number of software supporting a format, is about the way the format 
provides interoperability features.

> Otherwise, how the discussion with the Italian GDPR authority about 
> having them distribute that form in .odt format would turn out?

> "Dear authority, by making the form available only in .docx format you 
> are effectively preventing citizens who cannot afford a Microsoft Office 
> license to exercise their rights"

> "What???? Use LibreOffice, their website says they are compatible with 
> Microsoft Word"

Providing the document as ODT would make the document available forever, 
independently from any software vendor. Providing it as DOCX makes the 
document subject to Microsoft commercial strategies, even if it is 
supported by 100 programs.

The difference is between an open and independent standard and a closed 
and proprietary standard, between having the freedom to decide and being 
controlled by a company.

> I had a paragraph here whose point was basically to try collaborate with 
> Microsoft to better export from MSO to ODF.

Microsoft is already a member of the ODF Technical Committee, and has 
contributed substantially to ODF 1.3. But this doesn't mean that their 
ODF support will improve.

They are contributing technically, but the level of ODF support will be 
decided by their marketing and sales people (supported by their legal 
department).

When you sit on top of a 25 billion dollar market, your strategy is not 
going to be based on what should be done, but on what you have to do to 
sell more (even if this means cheating organizations such as ISO, or 
being nice on the surface and a shark below the surface.

Let's have a chat as soon as possible. I can give you some additional 
background, to make it easier for you to jumpstart your crowdfunding 
project.

Ciao, Italo

--
Italo Vignoli - LibreOffice Marketing & PR
mobile/signal +39.348.5653829 - email italo@libreoffice.org
GPG Key ID - 0xAAB8D5C0
DB75 1534 3FD0 EA5F 56B5 FDA6 DE82 934C AAB8 D5C0


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy