Daniel,
Jeff Causey wrote:
All that is true and sways the technical folks and power users, but I
rather suspect for your typical business person (who is the target of
Cor's project), you probably lost them after "An zip compressed XML
file..."
I don't expect a typical business person to understand the technical
details. But it is still true that OpenDocument files are much more
reliable and that's something most business people care about.
If "higher reliability" can be articulated in terms of a
sentence/bullet point, you might have something useful to add to the
list.
Sigh... the *first* email I wrote had a single, short bullet point. I
only added a technical explanation when someone asked me for one.
Yes, your first email indicated "Higher reliability. You're less likely
to lose a document." My issue is you can _say_ more reliable all day
long, but you need to be able to back it up. Your reply was to go into
a detailed explanation of the structure of the file formats and the
benefits of XML. The problem I am trying to anticipate is the business
person who responds, "Doesn't MSO use XML files now? What about their
new Office XML formats?"
As I said, everything you noted is accurate, I just don't see it
resonating. I did find this though:
Key Benefits and Functionality
.
*Compact file format.* Documents are automatically compressed---up to 75
percent smaller in some cases.
.
*Improved damaged file recovery.* Modular data storage enables files to
be opened even if a component within the file is damaged---a chart or
table, for example.
.
*Safer documents.* Embedded code---for example, OLE objects or Microsoft
Visual Basic for Applications code---is stored in a separate section
within the file, so it can be easily identified for special processing.
IT Administrators can block the documents that contain unwanted macros
or controls, making documents safer for users when they are opened.
.
*Easier integration.* Developers have direct access to specific contents
within the file, like charts, comments, and document metadata.
.
*Transparency and improved information security.* Documents can be
shared confidentially because personally identifiable information and
business sensitive information---user names, comments, tracked changes,
file paths---can be easily identified and removed.
Unfortunately, as you may have guessed, this comes from Microsoft and
can be found here:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/developers/fileoverview.mspx
So even if Cor is able to clean up what has been discussed as to the
benefits of using an XML based file schema versus the proprietary .doc
or .xls or .ppt formats, eventually it is still going to be compared to
the above list from MS and I suspect the person reading them will see no
difference because the benefits of an XML schema are the same.
MSO master documents get corrupted very easily. They break easily.
OOo's don't as much.
Do you have any data to back up your opinion that MSO master documents
get corrupted or break easily? I did find the statement you referenced
about "a master document can only be in two states..." here
(http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/General/WhyMasterDocsCorrupt.htm). And yes,
I understand that I am probably in the minority in questioning the
common knowledge of the flakiness of MS'es master documents. It just
sounds like a "rah, rah - we're better" type statement that could get
one into trouble if presented to the wrong audience.
Page styles matter. Does MSO have a Navigator and Stylist? Does it use
styles natively? (styles are so central to OOo you cannot avoid using
them - even when you think you're not using styles, OOo is making
styles dynamically for you)
IIRC, MSO does not have the equivalent of the Navigator. But then, I
don't use it in OO either. As for the Stylist, I think the equivalent
would be the task pane showing styles in MS Word. Yes, MSO uses styles
natively - just few people switch away from the default. As I explained
elsewhere in this thread, I do think OO does a better job at being overt
in trying to make you understand you are using styles and to make better
use of them. Likewise, I think OO's page styles is something definitely
better than MSO.
e.g. There is a "Window" menu that lists all your OOo windows
regardless of whether they are a WP, spread sheet, etc.
I'm sorry Daniel, but you've lost me. Usually in my work I'm pasting
tables or charts from the spreadsheet to a document. I don't recall
having trouble with either program with keeping track of which document
I was in/going to/coming from, etc. Perhaps you are talking about
something else though?
Ask Chad. Please don't quote Chad's list as if it were mine. That's rude.
My apologies Daniel - an oversight on my part amidst all the
copying/pasting I was doing.
Cor (and everyone else), you might want to check out this article by
Bruce Byfield:
http://software.newsforge.com/print.pl?sid=05/06/14/2137222
It covers much of the same ground this thread has been covering. But in
some areas it goes into much more detail (e.g. with regard to styles, he
notes the increased control Writer gives you over a variety of
settings). Hopefully there will be something in there that is useful.
Jeff Causey
