On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 13:54 -0600, Randomthots wrote: > I agree with all that. I just think that promoting OOo and promoting ODF > are interlocking but still separate propositions.
That is why OpenDocument Fellowship exists as a separate entity. > *At this point* > promoting OOo on the basis of ODF is non-starter. I think its best to promote ODF in its own right and then link to OOo. Although someone who was completely naive might think that the success of MSO was entirely down to features in the product, the lock into .doc and the transfer of attachments via the internet certainly have been a factor. Internet integration is an even bigger issue now so its not just about OOo as an office suite, but OOo and its ability to integrate with the Internet. Google can open up a whole vista of search options for ODF independently of OOo. ODF has the potential to be the next step in the HTML, XHTML, XML progression in which case OOo is actually a lot less important than ODF. Most of the big players realise this which is why there is all of the fuss over MA. It goes well beyond office software. > But the more OOo is > adopted, the easier it will be to promote ODF. And the more ODF is developed for Internet applications beyond office apps the more likely OOo is to get taken up. > OOo is the "reference > application" for ODF in the same way the MSO is the reference app for > MSO file types. But the world has changed a lot since MSO and .doc. .doc is a binary format specific to Word. ODF is not specific to OOo, its not even specific to office productivity tools. > And of course, the particular market segment you're targeting makes a > difference, too. It certainly does. Think of document archives, searches, storage, web site development and internet applications that have yet to be thought about. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
