Why ODF and not OOXML - TDF Community Blog
blog.documentfoundation.org
Many interpreted the last article in this series as an attack on Microsoft for using the OOXML format against users’ interests. However, this was only one of my objectives, as I also wanted to raise users’ awareness of fake open-source software, such as OnlyOffice, which partners with Microsoft in a strategy to lock users in. Users are already aware of the advantages of standard, open formats because they access sites every day whose content is accessible thanks to the HTML format. This is a standard, open format that was first developed and then defended by its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. He prevented Microsoft from transforming it into a proprietary format with Internet Explorer 6. This forced users to have two versions of a site: one in a standard format and one in a proprietary format. Fortunately, Microsoft’s strategy failed in the case of HTML because the W3C – unlike the ISO – never recognised the changes to the format “forced” by Internet Explorer as valid. This was because Internet Explorer did not display sites in the standard format correctly. Ultimately, this forced the company to develop a browser that complies with all standards, thus allowing users to choose their preferred browser
  • badgermurphy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    9 hours ago

    “The end-user” is another way to say “everyone in the developed world”, and nobody is refusing to collaborate with Microsoft here. What has happened is that Microsoft then agreed to collaborate, did so in bad faith, and released what they are calling and open standard, but it is neither open nor standard.

    OnlyOffice appears to be trying their best to adhere to this “standard”, but their best efforts are still resulting in substantial rendering differences of the same document in OnlyOffice and Word. That means to me that at least one of the following must be true:

    • every of the many 3rd party attempts to adhere to the standard was done poorly and failed
    • the standard does not work or is not strict enough to be possible to adhere to
    • the standard is intentionally sabotaged so that it cannot work

    The dubious events around the establishment and adoption of this “standard” make me lean strongly toward the 3rd option,which is in keeping with entire documented history of Microsoft’s hostile, aggressive, and bad faith business practices.