Robinson Tryon wrote > On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:37 PM, V Stuart Foote <
> VStuart.Foote@ > > wrote: >> >> Since then, the Chinese Office suite development by the likes of RedFlag >> 2000 (defunct), KingSoft, YozoSoft and CS2C with state sponsorship and >> academic research have refined the UOF national "standard" into a version >> 2.0 >> >> So, anyone on the ESC or the TDF board have an opinion of what to do in >> LibreOffice regards UOF? > > What are the major barriers preventing greater adoption of ODF in > China? Sure, high-fidelity UOF <-> ODF conversion software could be > helpful for interoperability purposes, but I think our overarching > goal here should be to get more groups using ODF (natively, > preferably) unless there's a good reason for them to go with some > other standard. You mean like having XML natively encoded and structured in readable 2-byte Chinese characters ;-) Also, have seen one of the stated goals of UOF to be fostering a Chinese software development ethos "respectful of cultural and language" interests and breaking from western software dominance--like ODF. > IIRC, there are a couple of people employed by Chinese tech companies > who sit on the OASIS ODF TC. I've no idea if they could be helpful > here :-) I hope so, I have hunted for something resembling a published standard for UOF v2.0, without success. If we have any hope of moving this forward--either as an import/export filter, or done with external conversion, we'll need to find an authoritative source and guidance of what describe structure of the UOF standard. Someone sitting the OASIS ODF TC would be aware of UOF developments. >> Abandon it and concede to provide no >> interoperability support for Chinese users? Should filters be removed >> from >> core and repackaged as an extension to externally provide document >> conversion? > > Perhaps there are companies/groups in China that would be interested > in improving the UOF support in LibreOffice. Having a suitably-sized > set of test documents is probably the best first step towards > improving the format support. I don't know, I've installed WPS and generated some test files--the native .WPS generated doesn't even seem to be UOF. I am not am not sure, but I think all the suites have proprietary native formats--and optionally produce UOF formats to satisfy PRC XML standard. If true, further complicating the challenge. > A quick search on Bugzilla only turns up > 3 bugs that reference "UOF", and 6 that reference "UOT": > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=492261&longdesc=UOF&longdesc_type=allwordssubstr&product=LibreOffice&query_format=advanced > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/buglist.cgi?list_id=492266&longdesc=UOT&longdesc_type=allwords&product=LibreOffice&query_format=advanced Not too surprising, suspect that most users of a Chinese language office suite--WPS, Yozo, NeoShine or even the old RedFlag suite--looking for interoperability would try OOo, LibreOffice or AOO and give up when their document didn't open. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/UOF-v2-0-the-PRC-national-XML-standard-for-Chinese-Office-documents-what-to-do-with-it-in-LibreOffic-tp4128745p4128764.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
