Story: OOXML expert: ODF standard is broken

• 
• 

Doesn't Brown's "no ISO/IEC:26300 support" criticism stand?

When I save a document in OOo, Lotus Symphony, or KOffice, I see no option to save the document as ISO/IEC:26300. I have only a single option per filetype.

The problem here is that the international standard is N but none of the full-featured tools available are writing to N; they will only write to N+1 which is not now and to my knowledge never will be an international standard. ODF 1.1 was never submitted to JTC 1 and plans are to submit ODF 1.2 without submitting ODF 1.1. But if history be any guide, before ODF 1.2 is finalized as an international standard, the full-featured ODF apps will be writing to ODF 1.3, without retaining the ability to write to ODF 1.0, 1.1, or 1.2.

This might not be such a problem if ODF 1.2 did not break compatibility with ODF 1.0 and 1.1 (the list enhancement "feature") or v. 1.2 specified a compatibility framework -- including preservation of relevant metadata -- for backward and forward compatibility among implementing apps. But watching the ODF TC mailing list, I've seen no moves in that direction.

But the bottom line seems to be that support for international standards is irrelevant to major implementing vendors, for both ODF and OOXML. The message from both sides of that particular fence seems to be that if conforming international standard support is identified as a procurement specification, there will be no bidders, i.e., if they specify N support, they can't get it.

And even that analysis blinks past a host of other interoperability issues in both ODF and OOXML. Both camps are oblivious to the market requirement of interoperability, even among implementations of their favored "standard."

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

Full Talkback thread