Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-20 Thread Tanstaafl
On 3/16/2014 12:24 PM, Jim Seymour wrote: I don't think the OP's original question silly. I think he or she wanted to know if LibréOffice's support for MS Office formats was compatible with those of MS Office's. A reasonable question, in my view. If the question was is it 100% compatible, th

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-17 Thread Toki Kantoor
On March 17, 2014 3:41:24 AM PDT, e-letter wrote: >It's a worry that some users prefer new "features" over standards compliance >and quality control. It is extremely rare for features to have a negative impact on standards compliance. It is not uncommon for features to enhance standards compl

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-17 Thread Italo Vignoli
On 17/03/14 11:41, e-letter wrote: > It's a worry that some users prefer new "features" over standards > compliance and quality control. Please do not see new software features as changes to the document format. Over 99% of new features do not have any impact on the document format, which is the

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-17 Thread Tanstaafl
On 3/16/2014 12:07 PM, Jim Seymour wrote: Once again: Putting the cart before the horse. LO does not "define" the standard. OASIS or ISO (depending upon one's perspective, I suppose) defines the standard. LO's responsibility is to faithfully *implement* the standard. As the *leading* 'user

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-17 Thread e-letter
On 16/03/2014, Jim Seymour wrote: > > Practical implementations of a proposed standard are wonderful, but, > before it's part of the standard, documents written with such > extensions are, _by definition_, non-standard formats. > It's a worry that some users prefer new "features" over standards c

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-16 Thread Jay Lozier
On 03/16/2014 12:24 PM, Jim Seymour wrote: On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:43:09 + e-letter wrote: [snip] The original question asked whether LO is compatible with m$, hence the reciprocal question as the answer. It is not known why the original poster (HB) asked this (silly) question: ... [snip

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-16 Thread Jim Seymour
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 14:43:09 + e-letter wrote: [snip] > > The original question asked whether LO is compatible with m$, hence > the reciprocal question as the answer. > > It is not known why the original poster (HB) asked this (silly) > question: ... [snip] I don't think the OP's original

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-16 Thread Jim Seymour
On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 01:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Pedro wrote: [snip] > > In fact it is impossible that any other office suite produces 100% > compatible ODF documents since by definition LO is one of the > products defining the ODF characteristics... [snip] Once again: Putting the cart before the horse

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-16 Thread Jim Seymour
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 20:49:32 -0700 (PDT) Owen Genat wrote: [snip] > There is a statement on the OASIS website (which > unfortunately I cannot find at present) which indicates that in > order for a new feature to be included in ODF-Next by OASIS, it > must first be implemented in a few different pi

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-16 Thread e-letter
On 15/03/2014, Jim Seymour wrote: > On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 03:25:43 -0700 (PDT) > Pedro wrote: > >> nabbler wrote >> > Please go to m$ and ask if m$office is compatible with the ODF >> > standard of LO >> >> THAT is exactly the problem! There should never be an "ODF standard >> of LO". > [snip] > >

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-16 Thread Italo Vignoli
On 16/03/14 09:01, Pedro wrote: > This just proves my point (going back to the comment by nabbler) that it if > the bureaucracy takes so long, you can't really blame MS (or any other > vendor) for not being 100% compatible. No. Compatibility is measured against the standard (ISO ODF 1.0 / OASIS

[libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-16 Thread Pedro
Owen Genat wrote > No. The information provided by Italo up-thread is correct: > italovignoli wrote >> ... ODF 1.2 which is in the process of becoming an ISO standard (backward >> compatible with ODF 1.0). Standard definitions, by their own nature, are >> moving slowly. Interesting. This means tha

[libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Owen Genat
Jim Seymour wrote > Pedro wrote: >> So it's not a case that LO is not implementing the existing ODF >> standards but that it is already improving on them (in an open >> manner, unlike MS XML). So OASIS has to catch up :) > > OASIS establishes the standards, no? If such is the case: What > you've

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Valter Mura
In data sabato 15 marzo 2014 13:34:01, pete nikolic ha scritto: > > Has Urmas changed his username ? makes one wonder I think so. In fact, its address is inpost(or)@gmail.com The debunker is back. -- Valter Open Source is better! LibreOffice: www.libreoffice.org KDE: www.kde.org Kubun

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Italo Vignoli
On 15/03/14 16:58, Jim Seymour wrote: > To be clear: I have no problem with LO implementing non-standard > behaviour, but that behaviour *must* be optional, with the switches > that enable it clearly noted as such. You can select the default ODF document format from the Options menu. You can choo

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Jim Seymour
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 09:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Pedro wrote: > Jim Seymour wrote > > No offense intended, but that's weasel-word way of saying LO is > > non-standard. > > I can't figure out how calling someone a weasel can be *not* > offensive... [snip] My apologies. Bad choice of terms on an intern

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Jim Seymour
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 17:12:51 +0100 Werner wrote: > Hi Jim, > [snip] > > My understanding as a normal/basic user of LO is that it supports > the different ODF standards which exist, some of them approved by > OASIS and others not yet approved. > > E.g. in writer you can select the ODF version s

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Tom Davies
Hi :) E-letter's post was somewhat confusing. ODF 1.2 is used by many programs and suites and is implemented almost identically in all of them. You can even post bug-reports in the various programs and suites if you do find any difference between implementation and written specification. Errr, e

[libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Pedro
Jim Seymour wrote > No offense intended, but that's weasel-word way of saying LO is > non-standard. I can't figure out how calling someone a weasel can be *not* offensive... I'm not affiliated to TDF/LO so this is just my opinion and I don't have any advantage in convincing anyone to use LO/ODF an

[libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Werner
Hi Jim, On 3/15/2014 4:58 PM, Jim Seymour wrote: ... As Italo mentioned LO is backwards compatible with all ODF specifications. But since LO is pushing the ODF file format, the current LO implementation is more advanced than the current approved OASIS standard (e.g. LO supports font embedding)

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Jim Seymour
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 08:32:27 -0700 (PDT) Pedro wrote: > Hi Jim, all > > > Jim Seymour wrote > > I read that as "compatible with the ODF standard, as implemented > > in LO." I.e.: LO uses the ODF standard. Does MS Office? > > > > Did I read that wrong? Or does LO not properly implement the O

[libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Pedro
Hi Jim, all Jim Seymour wrote > I read that as "compatible with the ODF standard, as implemented in > LO." I.e.: LO uses the ODF standard. Does MS Office? > > Did I read that wrong? Or does LO not properly implement the ODF > standard? As Italo mentioned LO is backwards compatible with all O

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Jim Seymour
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 03:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Pedro wrote: > nabbler wrote > > Please go to m$ and ask if m$office is compatible with the ODF > > standard of LO > > THAT is exactly the problem! There should never be an "ODF standard > of LO". [snip] I read that as "compatible with the ODF standard,

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread pete nikolic
On Sat, 15 Mar 2014 03:25:43 -0700 (PDT) Pedro wrote: > nabbler wrote > > Please go to m$ and ask if m$office is compatible with the ODF standard of > > LO > > THAT is exactly the problem! There should never be an "ODF standard of LO". > > If OASIS (the organization that defines the ODF standar

Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Italo Vignoli
On 15/03/14 11:25, Pedro wrote: > If OASIS (the organization that defines the ODF standard) is not able to > keep pace and improve on the document's definition to make it a valid open > document standard, then the de facto standard will ALWAYS be the MS file > formats... ODF has a clear path forw

[libreoffice-users] Re: LO compatibility

2014-03-15 Thread Pedro
nabbler wrote > Please go to m$ and ask if m$office is compatible with the ODF standard of > LO THAT is exactly the problem! There should never be an "ODF standard of LO". If OASIS (the organization that defines the ODF standard) is not able to keep pace and improve on the document's definition t