Advertisement
Smart VPS: 192 MB RAM, 10 GB disc space, 50 GB data transfer and Virtuozzo OS virtualization solution.
Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
document formatsdocument formatsPosted May 28, 2007 10:23 UTC (Mon) by job (subscriber, #670)Parent article: OSBC: The Microsoft/Novell panel
Laughed out the door for not supporting Office 2007 XML? What?
Please point me to ONE organization who has actually standardized on that format. Just one will do. I know of a select few who has standardized on OpenOffice XML, but exacly zero on Office 2007.
I see Office97 documents daily, occasionally OpenOffice XML documents, but I have to this day seen no Office 2007 documents at all. Moving the world from one document format to another is hard work, and I doubt Microsoft can manage that transition very much easier than OpenOffice/Sun/Red Hat can.
With that I want to say that OpenOffice actually has a fighting chance if the world is to change to an XML based office format, and that Novell's opinions are bogus.
(Log in to post comments)
document formats Posted May 29, 2007 0:11 UTC (Tue) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link] Please don't use the phrase "OpenOffice XML". It's totally ambiguous. Did you mean OOXML (the microsoft format, short for "Office Open XML"), or ODF (the open format that OpenOffice and many others use, short for "Open Document Format")?
Confusion between these names harms the free world's efforts to distinguish them; it's unfortunate that Microsoft's format just happens to have such a confusable name...
document formats Posted May 29, 2007 1:51 UTC (Tue) by JesseW (subscriber, #41816) [Link] And the similarity of names is hardly an accident, I'm sure. It'd be really interesting to get copies of the memos in which Microsoft folks discussed the naming of their attempted-lock-down XML format (as it should really be called...)
document formats Posted May 31, 2007 10:16 UTC (Thu) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link] I very much doubt that the confusion "just happened" to be that way — I would bet that Microsoft deliberately chose the name to be as ambiguous as possible, to increase perceived legitimacy from less knowledgeable users.
|
|||||||||||