FSFE asks: What is the ODF-OOXML-converter really good for?

[housetier]

In a guest article on heise open FSFE asks questions about OOXML and ODF and converters:

But if Microsoft's claims to technical superiority of MS-OOXML over ODF are true, how could one ever be converted perfectly into the other?

Microsoft maintains that while it would have been easy to support the Open Document Format (ODF) natively, it had to move to MS-OOXML because this was the only way for them to offer the full features of its office suite. But if Microsoft itself is not able to represent its internal data structures in the Open Document Format (ODF) in its Microsoft Office suite, how could an external conversion program from MS-OOXML accomplish this task?

These are good questions.

Given past experience, their conclusion that

Microsoft has more interest in lock-in than competition

doesn't seem too far fetched.

Nonetheless, you should read the article for yourself, and also inform yourself about the FSFE.

If your views differ, please do say so here! I might sound anti-MS, but facts are more important than feelings.

from http://www.heise.de/open/artikel/92735

[gjehle]

Typical behavior.

Microsoft joins the committee to draft ODF, stays silent, doesn't contribute.
But what they do is grab all the good stuff and figure out a way to "improve" (read: add something proprietary) the format and stab everyone who made an effort in the back.
Corporate leeches.

[zridling]

Good find, housetier! Rob Wier uses an analogy and goes into further detail on this question. Rob takes Microsoft's argument to its logical conclusion:

[zridling]

Oh, and be sure to visit FSFE's Six questions to national standardisation bodies page that housetier notes. Even if you're not interested in this issue, you should be if you intend to use MS Office. MS-OOXML is fine as a proprietary product specification, but not as an ISO standard, given its many flaws and proprietary interdependencies.



Imagine standardizing HTML and CSS based on what IE6 is capable of. No thanks.