[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: PAX: Why OOXML and ODF are inadquate bases for a forward-l

• From: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@g...>
• To: "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@a...>
• Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:37:49 +0100

On 8/13/07, Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...> wrote:
> Neither ODF nor Office Open XML are adequate bases for a forward-looking,
> general-purpose office document format.
>
> This is because the needs for level-playing-field data-interchange and the
> needs for full-fidelity native formats are diametrically opposed and
> *irreconcilable* by any single schema. Level-playing-field data
> interchange requires a limitation of the documents to features supported
> by generator and consumer, and some ability for graceful degradation.
> Full-fidelity native formats require complete implementation of
> product-specific features, which well may be more than hints added on top
> of a generic structure, but sometimes have to be in terms of the data
> models of the particular application.


That makes a lot of sense.  It highlights the "common format" problem
that occurs all over the place, not just between office apps.

Proprietary XML can be better than a single format - vendors can
plough ahead with new features without worrying about whether the
common format can support it (or waiting for it to be upgraded), and
users can enjoy interoperability using document converters that evolve
with the products (written by highly paid XML specialists...)


cheers
andrew
-- 
http://andrewjwelch.com

• References:
  • RE: Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • PAX: Why OOXML and ODF are inadquate bases for a forward-looking general purpose office format
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <rjelliffe@a...>