Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Apr 2008 17:15 UTC, submitted by SReilly
"The undeclared war between the Microsoft and the European Union has been relatively quiet for the past few months; we haven't heard much from either party since the EU fined Microsoft USD 1.36 billion. The scarcely settled cauldron between the two organizations, however, is about to receive a good stirring, due to the actions of EU Parliment representative and Green Party member, Heide Ruehle. Ruehle has filed a question with the Parliament, raising the issue of whether the EU's legal findings against the company preclude it from taking part in future public procurement discussions."
Thread beginning with comment 309736
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: So let me get this straight...
by lemur2 on Tue 15th Apr 2008 23:41
in reply to "RE[4]: So let me get this straight..."
Member since:2007-02-17
"These are just Microsoft say-so.
No, this is reality. "
No, it is jsut Microsoft's say so.
"ODF can support any fidelity level required.
Emphasis on can. Not does. You do know the difference, right? "
Yes, does. Everything that an Office document needs to have stored can be (and is) stored in an OpenDocument format file.
You can of course come up with something that can't ... right?
No?
I thought not.
"If there is anything still obscured in Microsoft legacy formats that ODF does not support ... that is only because Microsoft obscured it ... no other reason. Microsoft had five (5) years or more to put anything they cared to specify into the ODF format (and they still have that opportunity even now) ... but Microsoft chose not to participate.
Ah, so it's Microsoft's fault that ODF doesn't support full-fidelity with Office content? Amusing viewpoint. "
Amusing? Not at all.
What is amusing is your blind belief that "Office file" and "Office document" is defined by Microsoft's implementation of same. It isn't.
"If there are any shortcomings of the current ODF specification (and that is very doubtful because we have only Microsoft's say-so on this) ... then Microsoft have only their own silence to blame for that.
We don't just have Microsoft's say-so. Here's a test. Create a sufficiently complex document in Office (ie. tables, charts, graphs, bullets, etc). Try opening it in OpenOffice (good luck with that, btw). Then, try saving it in ODF, and then loading it back in. Much of the content will be mangled. Why? Because ODF lacks the ability to represent all the content that is reflected in the criticisms on the Wiki. It isn't opinion. It's reality. "
You still don't get it, obviously.
Here is another test:
"Create a sufficiently complex document in OpenOffice (ie. tables, charts, graphs, bullets, etc). Try opening it in MS Office (good luck with that, btw). Then, try saving it in OOXML, and then loading it back in. Much of the content will be mangled."
Why? Because ODF lacks the ability to represent all the content that is reflected in the criticisms on the Wiki. It isn't opinion. It's reality.
No. Wrong. Just plain wrong.
The lack of round-trip fidelity is not caused by any lack of OpenDocument's ability to store information. This is easily demonstrated by doing the round trip in reverse ... the other way around if you will ... and starting with creating the document in OpenOffice.
The lack of round-trip fidelity, and loss of information during document conversions, is caused purely by Microsoft's deliberately obscuring the way that information is stored in their file formats. Nothing else.
Name one thing that you can put in a document that isn't supported by OpenDocument.
I'm not talking about fidelity of conversions between formats ... I'm talking only about the capability of the format to store the information that a document might contain.
PS: I looked at the criticisms of ODF in wikipedia. Those criticisms have indeed been attempted to be raised. There is no valid criticism of ODF 1.2 amongst them. ODF 1.2 is the version that OpenOffice and KOffice and other ODF-compliant applications actually now use.
Edited 2008-04-15 23:59 UTC
RE[5]: So let me get this straight...
by phoudoin on Fri 18th Apr 2008 10:11
in reply to "RE[4]: So let me get this straight..."
Member since:2006-06-09
"ODF can support any fidelity level required.
Emphasis on can. Not does. You do know the difference, right? "
The same as in "tomcat can be objective eventually about MS business practices" ?
Here's a test. Create a sufficiently complex document in Office (ie. tables, charts, graphs, bullets, etc).
Good luck with *that*...
Except for LaTeX and maybe FrameMaker, I've yet to see a good & stable complex documents software.
But that's not the point.
EU rules *its* market law. MS should get over it.
*You* should get over it.
Or just move away from EU market. Period.
Both of you.
RE[6]: So let me get this straight...
by tomcat on Sat 19th Apr 2008 23:27
in reply to "RE[5]: So let me get this straight..."
Member since:2006-01-06
Good luck with *that*...
Except for LaTeX and maybe FrameMaker, I've yet to see a good & stable complex documents software.
Except for LaTeX and maybe FrameMaker, I've yet to see a good & stable complex documents software.
For some reason, millions of people who use Office everyday to create complex documents disagree with you. They must all be wrong, eh?
But that's not the point. EU rules *its* market law. MS should get over it. *You* should get over it. Or just move away from EU market. Period. Both of you.
I'm not questioning the EU's ability to administer its own arbitrary rules -- and, make no mistake here, its rules are purely arbitrary and nationalistic. Quite frankly, I would love it if those smarmy bureaucrats would ban Microsoft products from Europe. I'd love it! Because, then, we'd get to see the EU's member economies turn into flaming piles of shiznit. The turmoil would be a wonderful thing to see. Go, EU! Shoot yourselves in the feet!
Member since:
2006-01-06
No, this is reality.
Emphasis on can. Not does. You do know the difference, right?
Ah, so it's Microsoft's fault that ODF doesn't support full-fidelity with Office content? Amusing viewpoint.
We don't just have Microsoft's say-so. Here's a test. Create a sufficiently complex document in Office (ie. tables, charts, graphs, bullets, etc). Try opening it in OpenOffice (good luck with that, btw). Then, try saving it in ODF, and then loading it back in. Much of the content will be mangled. Why? Because ODF lacks the ability to represent all the content that is reflected in the criticisms on the Wiki. It isn't opinion. It's reality.