OSNews

//Right now, there is no much point comparing the quality of the ODF-plugins as they are not both ready.//

This is not true.

Right now, we already know the basic structure and design aims of the two plugins.

The MS-sponsored one is a "converter" betwwen Office Open XML and ODF.

The non-MS one is a "save as" file format plugin. It takes the internal data representation of the document, and translates the data directly into ODF format.

The first has a dependency on Office Open XML. Office Open XML is the bit that we (as end users not wishing to be beholden to Windows) DO NOT WANT!

The second is a direct replacement for Office Open XML. Just as Office Open XML takes the document data in memory and represents it on disk, so does the "good" ODF plugin.

If Microsoft were truly interested in supporting ODF, they would do it the second way, and not the first. The second way is demonstrably the better way. It has got to a workable plugin quicker, it does not relay on another format, it can be used on the "save as" list of filters, and it is capable of being set as the default format.

The second way is what MA asked for, before they would consider MS Office. MA asked that any application be capable of setting ODF as the default save format, and they would consider it.

There is no way that the MS-supported "converter" plugin meets sensible requirements for ODF support. There is no way that MS needed to do it that kludgy way going via Office Open XML format first, but they did.

Right now we can tell that the MS ODF solution will not be used, and a better alternative will be.