On Nov 21, 2012, at 6:16 AM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Ian C <i...@amham.net> wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> saw this today >> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9233890/German_city_dumps_OpenOffice_switches_to_Microsoft?source=CTWNLE_nlt_pm_2012-11-20 >> >> Maybe an upgrade from 3.2 would help them? >> > > It is bizarre. They ran their desktops with both Microsoft Office > 2000 and OpenOffice.org 3.2.1. Their old version of Microsoft Office > fails to work well with recent Microsoft Office documents. So instead > of blaming Microsoft, the vendor that they paid for Office 2000, for > their non-backwards compatible file format changes, they blame > OpenOffice.org, an open source product that they never paid a cent > for.
And MSFT does change their formats slightly in every minor release. Strict compliance to OOXML should NOT be our goal. It should be flexible to allow for variance. OOXML elements have been known to be added to BINARY formats by MSFT Office. Some versions of MSFT Office have not even complied with OOXML in first major versions. AOO's intake of MSFT Office documents should be VERY forgiving or it will be more difficult to convert institutions from Office. Regards, Dave > > -Rob > >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> Ian C
