[discuss] Re: .doc compatibility

[NoOp]

On 02/25/2008 12:09 PM, Michele wrote:
 Jonathon,
 

   I am afraid I will have to disagree. I can  provide links to MSO
 documents  made very professionally using styles throughout that still don't
 convert nicely in OOo. Indentations for example are not correct, outline
 numbering disappears (and with it the ToC) and so on.

 * Presentation markup styles;
 * Content markup styles;
 
 
 If you have access to MSO (I do because it is the word processor of choice
 in the company where I work) try to compare the rendering of this document
 http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/22_series/22.011/22011-820.zip
 On MSO and OOo.
 You will notice that
 - frames in the first and second page are misplaced,
 - there are alignment issues in the ToC (which spans on two pages).
 - section 5.1 starts on a new page in OOo, but it is at the end of the page
 in MSO
 - there is an extra blank page at the end of the MSO version.
 
 Now, if you open the styles and fomatting window you will notice that styles
 are used for absolutely everything including Content styles for the ToC.
 
 You can argue that the problem is with MSO (for example there is no concept
 of frame styles and a trick has been used to create an annex with the same
 appearance as a heading 1), however the issue remains that even conversion
 between properly drafted documents is not free from problems.
 Of course don't even try to perform a double conversion MSO -- OOo -- MSO
 because this is a recipe for disaster :-)
 
 Cheers,
 
 Michele
 

I think that you always will find discrepancies between WP's and
versions. For example: if I open the document on MS Office 97 it
crashes. If I open the document in WinXPro MS Office 2000 and print to a
PDF and then compare with a PDF produced by OOo Linux I see differences.
If I compare with a PDF produced by OOo Windows 2.3.1 I see differences,
and If I compare with a PDF using OOo Go-oo I see differences.

I suspect that you may also see slight differences even amongst other
MSO versions on different systems, with different screen  font settings
(example - change your system font point settings and you'll see
differences immediately). Even using different systems with different
installed fonts and printing/saving to a PDF may render different results.

Point being is that document translation and conversion is not a fixed
property; you will always find some differences between systems, fonts,
versions (even the same WP or DTP), and perhaps differences even
depending on the phase of the moon (ok that last is a joke).

Given that the document PDF output differences between OOo (linux) and
MSO 2000 Word (Windows) are not major, I wonder if the argument
regarding document compatibility is valid. Consider taking the same
document and converting between MSO 2000 and MSO 2007, and save it from
MSO 2007 back to MSO 2000; I don't have MSO 2007, but my guess would be
that there will be some differences in the conversion.

Back to your original:

 Hello,
 
 now that microsoft has partially opened the documentation of the .doc 
 format, is there a chance that better doc compatibility will become a 
 primary objective  ?
 
 Thanks
 Andreas
 
 A frustrated IT director that got the order to reinstall word 2000 
 because of not so good .doc compatibility

Are the differences between the .doc and MSO 2000 significant enough to
justify reinstalling MSO 2000 (remember, you can't just install Word
2000, you need licenses for *all* computers and *all* will require MSO
2000 if that is your wish. I seriously doubt that you can even find
licenses  software for MSO 2000 for all of your systems  users... you
do want to keep this legal right? Instead, you will most likely need to
install MSO 2007 and have to renew *all* of your licenses (upgrade or
new install). Could be that the latter might be cost effective if your
users are high dollar users... \
  Then again, if the complaining user(s) are a few that simply don't
like having to edit a few existing documents ask them this: How much
time do you spend on a document/memo simply figuring out what font style
to use?




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [discuss] Re: .doc compatibility

[M. Fioretti]

On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 17:49:42 PM +, jonathon wrote:

(four times)
 Styles are not being correctly used.

since this, even outside of this thread, is one of the most frequent
issues, then maybe OOo/ODF styles are very poorly advertised and
documented, but this is a side topic.

The OP clearly said that this is a problem of interoperability with MS
Office users and/or documents. So maybe this is not really a case
where OOo/ODF styles aren't correctly used: this is a case where such
styles have never been used, because they didn't exist where those
documents were created; and maybe a case where such styles simply
_cannot_ be used, because such information is lost every time a file
goes in .doc format back and forth between OOo and MS Office
users. Are we sure this isn't the case here?

   No politics in this case, simply a office with to much power.
 
 It is an office that does not know how to use their tools correctly.

Maybe OOo is not _their_ chosen tool: from the initial message it is
not to be excluded that IT tried to switch users without them asking
for it or even knowing when the switch would happen. There are cases
where migration was indeed done this way, nobody noticed or complained
and a few people where even really happy that the last version of MS
Office finally doesn't crash and runs quite faster!

But of course, it all depends on how complex the existing MS Office
files are and on how much the users have to interact, editing files
together, with external MS Office users.

All the more reasons, incidentally, to participate in Document Freedom
Day: http://www.documentfreedom.org/

Ciao,
Marco
-- 
Your own civil rights and the quality of your life heavily depend on how
software is used *around* you:http://digifreedom.net/node/84

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[discuss] Re: .doc compatibility

[andreas moroder]

Hello Juergen,

 more interesting is the question what you mean with not so god .doc
 compatibility. Did you mean real conversion errors, missing data, bad
 formats or missing VBA features. For the latter one VBA i would say that
 we will never reach a really good compatibility.

I mean the onscreen formatting:
- Images are not in the places they are expected
- blank pages in places where there was no blank pages in word. This happens
mostly with tables ( we use vey much often tables because we have to write
many official things in two languages ( german and italian ) )
- sigle text lines that are indented ( eingerückt ) where in the original
text the lines started exactly one the same position.


 We are no simple clone althoug it looks so. We provide a good platform
 independent office suite with an open standardized document format that
 becomes adopted by more and more goverments and public offices all over
 the world.
I know. On my PC at home and office there is only OOo ( I must admin I have
access2000 installed because it does things OOo simply doesn't at the
moment )


 Don't be frustrated! There is often a lot of politics involved behind
 the scenes ;-)
No politics in this case, simply a office with to much power. The problem is
that now probably all the other users that already use OOo will cry loud
for word !

 
 But the good thing is that we always work on better compatibility.
 
 Juergen

Bye and thank you very much for Openoffice

Andreas


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]