Dotan Cohen wrote: > On 28/10/06, Johnny Andersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Since MS new formats are based on XML, wouldn't that be a good thing? >> Wouldn't it be much easier for developers of OpenOffice.org to write MS >> Office-OpenOffice.org file converters so that the converted file looks >> exactly like the original? And if (yes, I said "if") MS XML format >> proves to >> be better than odt, users of future versions of OpenOffice.org probably >> could save in that format if they want to. If conversions between MS >> Office >> and OpenOffice.org file formats were 100% accurate, which I think COULD >> happen with that new MS format, wouldn't this be an advantage for >> OpenOffice.org? I mean, as it is now, some people might not want to >> switch >> to OpenOffice.org, because they really need to edit MS Office files >> and they >> need them to look exactly the same wether they save them with >> OpenOffice.orgor MS Office. >> >> Johnny Andersson > > Although the new formats are 'standardized' they are not fully > documented. Also, if I've heard correctly (and I'm not an expert) MS > Office renders them slightly different than the spec- which is not > very surprising. Also, the spec has a _lot_ of bloat and requires that > the rendering application deal with conconsistencies. Try saving a > file with the text "Hello World" in odf on OOo, and in the latest doc > on Word. I'm interested to know the file sizes of the two. I don't > have MS Office here to check for myself.
It's been my experience that MS text and spreadsheet files tend to be 3 - 4 times larger than ODF. With presentations, Impress files tend to be smaller than PowerPoint, thought the difference isn't as great. This is because the images, which form most of the files in either format are already compressed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
