[Auzy]

Yep, lets all make assumptions on beta-quality code.

Firstly, Microsoft aren't the only ones who don't play well with others. Openoffice, Abiword, iWork and every other office suite on the planet uses its own formats.

Secondly, is OpenOffice OOXML 100% Strict compliant yet?

Finally, it's easy for people to stand by on the sidelines and whinge that a year old bug isn't fixed, or a new feature isn't added. Developers often calculate an estimated time required for development in advance, and for all we know, perfect compliance with the standard now may have been pushed back because implementation would have forced other features to be dropped. From a business/development perspective, this often makes sense.

Next release if they aren't compliant with strict, then yes, its time to freakout. But from a business decision, it doesn't make sense to rewrite code many times before it becomes a standard. And when applications sometimes do so, the end result is a mess, because the browsers then often need to support their broken standard, and the correct standard, or risk breaking compatibility with some websites.

Microsoft had no way of knowing exactly when the standard would be approved, or how many changes would be made. I don't think this is overwhelming proof that they are going out of their way to destroy standardisation.

[rbanffy]

> Secondly, is OpenOffice OOXML 100% Strict compliant yet?

Is it possible at all to be functional and implement OOXML correctly at the same time?

> it's easy for people to stand by on the sidelines and whinge that a year old bug isn't fixed

We could fix it, if Microsoft provided the source under a free license.

> it doesn't make sense to rewrite code many times before it becomes a standard

How long can possibly take to write code that implements the standard they invented based on their shipping products?

> I don't think this is overwhelming proof that they are going out of their way to destroy standardisation.

You are right. The subverted approval process offers such proof.

[Auzy]

UPDATE: Looks like Openoffice doesn't support saving to OOXML anyway.

So seems the only reason OO implemented it, is to encourage people to save to their own standard. So, from one perspective, OpenOffice are trying to destroy standardisation too (they are trying to force people to use their own standard).

Really, the whole thing is a power struggle to become the dominant format anyway. Since their main competitors are doing dodgy stuff to help force people to move to their own standards, I'd say its hardly surprising Microsoft aren't willing to sacrifice functionality to help competitors.

If OpenOffice were serious about standardisation, they would add support for OOXML saving, but they haven't yet!

[rbanffy]

> So seems the only reason OO implemented it, is to encourage people to save to their own standard

"So seems the only reason OO implemented it, is to encourage people to save to the other open and pre-existing ISO standard."

There. Fixed for you.

[bad_user]

ODF is the preexisting ISO standard that OpenOffice supports, and that's clearer and more open. They also support older .doc files quite well.

By adding OOXML support they would shoot themselves in the foot, mostly because OOXML is neither a de facto nor a proper de jour standard.

So why help with "standardization"? Patches are welcome btw.