> Both ODF and OOXML allow custom namespaces. Anyone can include virtually > anything they like into either format. But if your stated goal is > interoperability then the Sun ODF plugin worked, SP2 doesn't. >
Their stated goal was with ODF, not with OOo. My stated goal of being interoperable with MSO users means supporting what MSO comes with, not a third-party plugin. >> Any application that chooses to render ODF like MSO renders ODF is >> interoperable. OOo can be such an application if it chooses. >> > > Um, no, in the case where a spec doesn't specify then following the > crowd is being interoperable. > Again, their goal was to be interoperable with the spec to achieve standards-compliance. OOo-compatibility was not their goal. > To be honest, it leaves ODF as the looser here, as intended, not OO.o. > That _will_ be the case if OOo and MSO (the two largest players in the field) render it differently, and as you very well state that will kill ODF. That is why OOo should start rendering ODF 1.2 documents as MSO renders them. It keeps ODF safe, and it makes OOo a drop-in replacement for MSO. The truth is, I don't like playing follow the leader either. But in this unique example, I do say that OOo should play by MS's rules, to make their toehold in the industry stand. Just as OOo looks to MSO as the reference implementation of DOC, so should it be with ODF. -- Dotan Cohen http://what-is-what.com http://gibberish.co.il --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
