Here I am again, with the question I respectfully ask Rob to answer.

Has anyone carrefully tested OpenDocument Text (.odt) and Presentations (.odp) interoperability (and also conformance) ?
Can we safely save this type of ODF documents from Word and PowerPoint ?

Many users I know are tempted to put OpenDocument as the DEFAULT saving format. In Excel, this would be a disaster, but could we expect the same in Word or PowerPoint ?

Rob, please, can you share this information with us ?

I like Excel, even despite the abominable Ribbon. It is in nearly every way a better spreadsheet than others. I understand that MS doesn’t want to facilitate its already waning relevance by creating proper support for ODF. But as MS customer, I want and need ODF spreadsheets compatibility. Not conformance! This “damn the customer, full speed ahead” mentality is deplorable.

If we had the this for ODF 1.0/1.1/1.2 then there would be no doubt as to whether an office suite is conformant.

Come on OASIS get this done quick. MS will have nowhere to go then.

In Excel 2007, click on the Add-In tab. Click on the “Import ODF Document” icon in the Custom Toolbars section. Navigate to your ods document.
I’ve just tested this and it preserves the formulae.
Any other way of opening the ods document still strips out the formula, even with the Sun plug-in installed.

Suppose Microsoft is conforming. In the worst-case scenario, could Microsoft effectively create a “standard within a standard”, then turn around and argue for the sake of interoperability, backwards compatibility should be maintained in future ODF standards, thereby forcing its own “standard within the standard” into future implementations of ODF?

“oooc:=[.B3]+[.C3]+[.D3]“

~ $ gnumeric –version
gnumeric version ‘1.8.2′

1) Lack of programming talent
2) Mis-reading of the standard
3) Deliberate attempt to sabotage ODF

Doug can cry that the standard is not sufficiently clear, however the ability of other office suites to produce documents that passed Doug’s test while Microsoft could not, indicates that the problem isn’t the standard, it’s Microsoft. Considering how much money that Microsoft makes, I wouldn’t think it would be lack of talent. When implementing a standard, it is usual to have more than one person read the document, so it can’t be a mis-reading of the standard.

Until Doug provides evidence to the contrary, Item 3, a deliberate attempt to sabotage ODF is the only logical explanation.

Doug, I’m waiting to hear your response.

But it’s interesting that the encryption/password part is the only part of section 17 not implemented in SP2. I guess we can’t have too much interoperability!

-Peder

I’ve already seen comments on various websites; people all over the world has learned about your tests (http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-154383/microsoft-now-attempts-to-sabotage-odf)

As we all expected, Microsoft is doing their best to sabotage ODF. The single wise thing we may do is to have a strategy for avoiding this and raise more and more public awareness about their misbehaviour.

As an European citizen, I think there are a few gentlemen in Bruxelles that are very anxious to learn about the results of your tests ! In this time of deep financial crisis, supplementing the EU’s budget through fines would be welcomed by any EU citizen ! ;-)

Back to practical facts, you’ve concentrated your analysis on the “spreadsheet bug” in SP2. For the sake of the whole community, could you please add a few words about other type of files? Is support for ODF in Word and PowerPoint any better ?

Thanks again,
Răzvan

The sheer amount of time you and Mr. Knowlton have for pushing out criticism of the messenger instead of the message is mind-boggling.

Your customers want interoperability. They will define what it means, not your wasteful DII initiatives.

The public blog commentary benefits your customers. If your company doesn’t start addressing the substantive issues being raised instead of wasting everyone’s time with OOXML and personal attacks on bloggers, they won’t be your customers for long.

Got it — thanks.

-Rob

where says:

“Let’s see what the ODF 1.1 standard says in section 8.3.1:”

should say:

“Let’s see what the ODF 1.1 standard says in section 8.1.3 (Table Cell)”