> Following MS is a moving target. If you want to be the market leader, you have to work for it. If not, then OOo will continue to be the "alternative" office suite used by FOSS fanatics and the rare person who's morals prevent pirating but who's checkbook cannot handle MSO.
> Problem is the "leader" has consistently tried to make it difficult for > others to interoperate. It's a proprietary format, despite that OOXML > rammed through ISO. Take a look at their "standard" and you'll soon > discover it's difficult, if not impossible, for anyone other than > Microsoft to properly implement. We are not talking about OOXML. We are talking about ODF. And by the way, MSO 2007 is not OOXML compliant, either. >> I see that the MS effort is not 100% ODF compatible. Neither is the OOo >> effort. >> > How is it that all the other ODF players can interoperate, but MS can't? > All the other ODF players see each other on common ground, with comparable negligent market share. MSO with 95% of the market doesn't even notice them. > One of the main points of ODF was to get away from dependence on MS. No it wasn't. It was to permit document interoperability between office suites. > Your path will increase it. ODF is also fully open for all to see. By keeping MSO and OOo rendering documents differently, you think that will reduce dependence on the 95% market leader? No, people will continue using the program that they have always been using, and the rare OOo user will not be interoperable. > Can't say the same for OOXML. > I never mentioned OOXML. -- 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
