[clug] Tweet by @sherro58 FAS

Ben Nizette bn at niasdigital.com
Fri Jan 21 00:29:13 MST 2011

On 21/01/2011, at 5:50 PM, Alex Satrapa wrote:

> On 21/01/2011, at 17:34 , Robert Edwards wrote:
>> His list of other products simply demonstrates that everything
>> can read and write ODF. So why was ECMA-376 chosen? Not sure why
>> it is relevant that all these other products can read/import
>> ECMA-376? What's the point if you can't write the format back out?
> They're public servants, not scientists,

They're public servants, not typesetters or even people who use word processing as anything other than a means to an end!  Remember a COE is not best practise, not a migration plan, not an evaluation of the quality and ethics of a standard, it's a baseline and the last thing in the world these people want is thousands of angry public servants complaining that their huge, ancient, crufty M$ legacy documents have broken!

Given that, I don't see the authors had any choice other than to go with the easiest migration from .doc.  Can anyone here argue that importers, either OOo, M$ or otherwise, do a better job going from .doc to .odf than to ECMA-376 (and vice-versa)?

I really hope (and honestly expect) that once of the cruft is in ECMA-376 form it'll be easier to move to a truly free and open standard and the wider choice in word processors that implies.  M$ has a head start here but patience my friends, patience :-)


More information about the linux mailing list