Hagar Delest schreef op 02-10-2016 21:56:
Le 02/10/2016 à 19:29, Xen a écrit :
Jörg was only mentioning that the ODF format was also designed without
compatibility in mind, and that it is an equal situation.
I think that ODF was designed to be a fully open standard to give the
users back the property of their own data. This was to give users an
alternative to the proprietary formats like .doc, .xls, ...
The problem was that legacy file formats (.doc, .xls, ...) could not
allow intercompatibility between software. Hence the need of an open
standard.
Well Jörg stated this:
ODF 1.0 corresponded to 99% of the original OpenOffice-XML Formal (sxw,
sxc, etc.)
written only for OOo.
So maybe I should have been more specific. The reality is that ODF was
not designed; it already existed and apparently, was only slightly
adjusted and then turned into an "open standard".
But please, I want you to also look at the reality and not just the
shoulds and wants.
No one outside of the open source community really uses ODF. Probably,
some new application will see reasons to create its own format if only
to provide extra features or whatever that the old standard doesn't.
Also, even if you are not commercial and trying to limit what another
can do with your files, you can have a reason to e.g. not use a zip file
format, or whatever else you might say.
So, since ODF was not really designed, and since you can turn any
standard into an open standard, you could say e.g. Microsoft "should"
implement and support that open standard, but that's not really related
to it being open; being open merely guarantees that it would be easier.
But the question was incompatibilities.
By design, there should not be any compatibility aspect in an open
format : if the file format is fully documented, then each software
should respect that format and then the compatibility with other
applications will be achieved.
Tell that to the person who tried to open a Calligra document in
LibreOffice: all of the bulleting marks were replaced by something else
and the document didn't look the same at all.
But moreover I think many "open standards" must or apparently always do
accept a reduced level of functionality, think of the specification for
DLNA/UPNP in which some really useful functionality is barely possible.
Causing smaller companies that do want to provide a good user experience
to use their own format or protocol, or to extend the thing although
hardly possible.
So the reason Microsoft is so hard to make compatible (and many others
perhaps) is that they do introduce stuff for their own that hardly
anyone else can use.
But that's also how you create a better user experience and be honest,
most of the Linux software world... If I must not speak of AOO here then
I will mention GIMP, which has the full top menu under the context popup
(right mouse button) which is such a glaring deficiency (no actually
context menu, then) that no serious party or company that would want to
earn money would ever design such a product that way.
GIMP is just near (or nigh) unusable. But I am straying from the
subject.
In the best case an open standard is going to force companies to reduce
their level of functionality. In the worst case it is just not going to
be adopted and remain a pecularity of a select few that can open their
own documents but no one else does anyway.
So without regard for principle or ideals, look at the actual outcomes
today.
- We have one side of the world using a closed standard and the other
using an open standard, and the only reason the "open product" can (or
has tried to) read the "closed product" is because of market share.
OpenOffice *needed* to read MS-Word (for instance) but MS-Word did not
need to read OpenOffice all that much. Both are really doing their own
thing and do not communicate much.
They are both "islands" in that sense.
Meanwhile AOO and LibreOffice are infighting and Calligra is too
under-developed to be worth anything. And seeing my personal
experiences, support for the format is no guarantee that the document
will look the same from supporting-application to
supporting-application.
Hence /format/ seems not to be the focus point but /application/. An
application needs to have a guaranteed, dependable way of rendering the
format without quirks.
If it does not, having an open format is of no use really. Microsoft's
format is probably quirky as hell (or its application is) and that is
more of a problem than being closed.
So closed or open does not seem to determine much of actual outcomes.
Almost every program can open .doc documents so there never really was a
threat (at least not today) of your data being "hijacked" or 'locked'
due to vendor-lock-in. That's not a realistic situation. It is /more/
difficult to archive or migrate bookmarks. Of course Linux people
(perhaps) wanted to have something they could change and alter and
control themselves. Sure.
But that's an aspect of creativity and not being a company, the thing
would need to be document in order to cooperate.
In a sense that is also a "company motive", so there are now two
companies, one has one operational model, the other a different one. As
a consequence, the one company does not feel much need to share
information on its structure, while to the other it is its lifeblood.
They are still both "enclaves" of their own, just using different
strategies and mechanics. That might be virtually opposed, but still.
You could even call them diametrically opposed but still they are still
two islands of their own. So while you can claim superiority or
prevalence or relevance due to your format being "open" it is more of a
necessity for the operation of the machine (open source) than it is
something that actually affects interoperation with the other island.
It is an internal requirement, not an external requirement. The
closed-source nature of the .doc format (etc.) is also an internal
requirement, not an external requirement.
So both 'companies' are actually using internal reasons for their
choices, and it has nothing really to do with being better than the
other. You are both doing it for your own reasons, that work for you.
That is why the "it's not equal and we're better" is misplaced. What I
see mostly is s... I can call it complaining and I can call it
"self-pity". Some would brag about their format and at the same time
yell "poor me" all the time because the big bad bully doesn't comply.
And the only reason for this complaining and this self-pitying is /THAT/
you have called yourself "superior" because it might give a person a
sense of entitlement, and when that entitlement is not met (we are
better, but they are still not cooperating with us and making our lives
easier) the 'suffering' starts.
And it is self-created by even caring about what the other party does.
Do stuff for your own good, and not because of something else.
If Linux people didn't care and really did their own thing they wouldn't
need to constantly blame Microsoft for all their misfortune.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
