Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


Am 08.09.2011 00:07, e-letter wrote:

Would be interested to hear your explanation why other m$ formats are
_not_ against the interests of LO (i.e. increased _visible_ usage of
odt. Using LO to write m$ formats should be considered invisible
usage, of what benefit exactly?).


If not for collaboration, there needs to be a bridge leading from their file formats to free file formats. The binary formats are well known by the ODF developers since the early days of StarOffice. The feature set of this office suite is adjusted to the feature set of MS Office, so both file formats can describe the same documents (more or less). MS introduced their new OOXML to expand that commonly used feature set and because they too want something with "Office" and "Open" and "XML" in the name. ODF applications should support the same set of features before writing OOXML, but wait --- do we really want that a new round in this rat race?


--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.