On 02/01/11 17:07, Mark Preston wrote:
> Please remember that both LibO and OpenO can already *read* the
> formats and the issue is whether or not it is practical or pragmatic
> to put effort into developing something to *write* the OOXML form.
My understanding is that Microsoft intends to implement strict OOXML
gradually, with each successive release of Microsoft Office using an
increasingly 'strict' form of transitional OOXML. Assuming that I am
correct in this assumption, does it not make sense that Microsoft will
make each successive version of their transitional OOXML backwards
compatible with their last and that they will release updates or add-ons
to ensure forward compatibility for older products (Office 2007 and 2010).
Those are of course unfounded assumptions, but reasonable ones none the
less. Thus if this is the case, we're not talking about maintaining
support for 3+ different versions of OOXML but rather maintaining
support for the latest version of Microsoft's transitional OOXML (and
perhaps strict OOXML) which should (eventually) become strict OOXML. Now
I assume nobody has an issue with strict OOXML (which is, as I
understand it, an open standard) so why would you have an issue with
implementing by graduations (in line with Microsoft) strict OOXML via a
series of transitional specifications?
Kind Regards,
Lee Hyde.
--
"In order to offer someone a financial reward without him working for
it, the government must first ensure that somebody else works for a
financial reward without getting it. There is no other way."
-- Douglas Wilson
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
