Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of Office Open XML software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 11:00, 27 January 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Added column

[edit]

And extra column was added to the table by an anon user stating: ISO/IEC 29500:2008 support in applications. Most of applications dont support ISO standard, only the old version of OOXML, which was not standardised. However this is not correct because nearly all implementations will currently comply with the fully open Ecma 376 standard from standardization organization Ecma International. I suggest either removing this column, adding a column for the Ecma 376 standard or changing the column to "Complies with Standard version " and adding in the column the name the latest standard version it complies with. hAl (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I realise, that my comment was not clear. But I write to text of this article this: The following tables list applications supporting some version of Office Open XML specification. Standardized Office Open XML ISO/IEC 29500:2008 is currently not supported in most of applications. I think, this is correct statement. I think, comparison of software may contain these informations: "What version of OOXML is declared by author as implemented ?", "What version of OOXML can this software correctly read ?" (testing is needed), "What version of OOXML is used in new created/saved files" (validation is needed). I think it is very important to use the same criteria in comparison of OOXML software and ODF software. Information about ISO/IEC implemented is very important for public authorities, that must use only specified official (ISO) standards stated in their "local law". But there is difference between "software creator declaration about ISO/IEC compliancy", "read capabilities" of ISO/IEC files and capabilities of "create/save" valid ISO/IEC files. I think, it is very important to be fair and precise in comparison of software. I created in comparison of ODF software table with validation of simple basic created/saved simple ODF files. I validate ODF files created in listed software in two different validators. I think that no one should write to table of software comparison that some specification "is implemented" ("yes" in ISO/IEC column), before he find software creator statement, what version of standard is implemented, before he test reading capabilities and before he test validation of created documents. It is not easy do all of this, but without it the informations will be incomplete and incorrect. Therefore I started with separate table, that validate only saved files. I dont tested reading capablities or search software creator declarations. --213.151.217.130 (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC) (my IP is dynamic and I dont have account on wikipedia)[reply]
Allthough a lot of ODF files produces with those applications might validate it is unlikely there is any reliabel IOS-ODF implementation. Even the most commonly used OOo application has well know problems producing files that correctly adhere to the spec (like the use of a different mathml version than ISO-ODF requires). I am aqctually not sure how many % of current MS Office files would validate againstthe ISO traditional schema's. So it is hard to say that a version does not support ISO 295000 unless this has been tested somewhat and untill some testfiles in de new ISO spec become availalbe to test import of the applications. You added a table suggesting MS Office does not implement IS 29500. However it might wel support producing OOXML files that validate against the ISO schema's or be able to read most ISO spec files already. hAl (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally I suggest you register an account as several of the IP's your are using have been warned for vanadalism in Wikipedia in the past. hAl (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, there should be two columns - read capabilities and write capabilities, or maybe three columns - declared implementation, read capabilities, write capabilities. Tests may be done separatelly with all formats - text, spreadsheet, presentation and problematic results may be separated in the table. Another solution is write to one column, if sotware has ISO/IEC read capabilities and after comma write possible problems with ISO/IEC compliancy in saved documents and also write declared implementation. I wrote "no" to ISO/IEC to MS Office in the base of Microsoft statement - that they will support ISO OOXML first in MS Office 14, and not in MS Office 2007 and earlier versions. I dont test validation of MS Office 2007 files, because I was count on MS statement. If there will be consensus that the comparison table will contain more informations about implementated specifications and OOXML files created in current MS Office will pass validation, then is no problem to write "valid". But it must be tested. --213.151.217.130 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I found that some of dynamic addresses from my internet service provider are marked for vandalism. But that was not me. I started with editing wikipedia only cca last month and it is still new for me.--213.151.217.130 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed your are only adding limitations on software for OOXMLwahilst you are adding to ODF software article without any word of limitations of similar software. Even if those limitations are similarly evident. I wonder about the motives for your edits ? Mayby it woulrd be better to remove all those edits as it seems fairly strange that only the the articles about OOXML software are feuled by people interested in describing limitations on the implemanetations even if they afe actually are qualifying as conforming implementations whilst the same peopele editing are alos editing the ODF software artiecle where limitations of implementations are not listed. hAl (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, could you be exact and give me some examples? I really try to work hours and hours on OOXML and ODF software tests and comparisons and I try to be fair to both formats. Please, see history of ODF comparison and ODF software pages and you will see, that I try to be really precise with recognising of format support. Till now I did no OOXML validation tests and I validate only ODF files - and that is really unfair for ODF. I will be very thankful to you, if you will help me with this hard work. It needs hours of time. (For example - I have no access to Mac OS X platform and I get informations and example files only from other people - when they have time.) But what I see is, that the same people are continually adding many software only to OOXML (without any testing) and they dont put the same software to ODF software page. For example - Butler Office, Celframe Office are de facto OpenOffice.org copies and they create valid ODF files and they have limited or no support for OOXML. But someone put them to OOXML software and not to ODF. Why? Adobe Buzzword, Oxygen XML Editor, UOF converter, Nisus Writer Pro - they all can work with ODF, but someone put them only to OOXML software page. As you ask: What are motives for all that work? I think, this is encyclopedia and not marketing place. But maybe I am wrong. --213.151.217.143 (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you do not register an account on wikipedia and sit on variable IP's it is very hard to verify who is doing what. I already suggested registering an account before. hAl (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I see, my IP addresses are 213.151.217.x. All editings on ODF and OOXML in last 2 months from these IP addresses was made by one person - by me. You can see, that only couple of people made all editings, so it is easy to understand. --213.151.217.134 (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I finished now with work from IP addresses mentioned above (213.151.217.*). My future work will be made from another IP addresses. Please HA1, when you want to criticise someone, look better to changes history. You can see there, that it was user with name Ghettoblaster, who edit OOXML and ODF articles, but fixate to OOXML and neglect ODF. --213.151.217.137 (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I do not neglect ODF or any other free and open standard as far as that's concerned. Anyone can see this in the edit history of ODF related articles and by simply looking at my list of contributions. The simple reason for me mostly contributing to OOXML related articles lately is because of the simple fact that the portrayal of both standards was all but fair and balanced a few weeks ago. (Many editors — especially anonymous IPs — don't seem to be aware that Wikipedia is not a soapbox: advocacy or recruitment of any kind has no place in an encyclopedia. According to Wikipedia guidelines, if someone wants to convince other people of the merits his favorite document standard he or she should start a blog or visit a forum instead.) So I tried my best to help fix this problem by adding properly referenced content and removing unreferenced and biased POV content etc. whereas many other editors seem to prefer exacerbating the imbalance and fighting the neutrality.
Second, I strongly suggest creating a user account if you're planning to stay with Wikipedia long term. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the same biased editing behaviour. Alleged limitations in the standard implementations seem to be only highlighted for Office Open XML software but never for OpenDocument software. This reminds me of an interesting quote from this user from a recent discussion on my talkpage: "I think OOXML and ODF must have the same base criteria for comparison. Otherwise it will be unfair to ODF." Double standards? Ghettoblaster (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read my answer above, that I wrote today for HAl. I will be thankful for any example of my wrong work. I will be also thankful, if you recognise, that was I, who removed EIOffice from ODF software, who removed ODFVisor from ODF spreadsheet and presentation software and who marked many software as not-valid. If you will have someday some free time, please put some ODF software, that you put only to OOXML also to ODF software. I know, that no one is perfect, no one has enough time and people must cooperate to make wikipedia better source of informations. --213.151.217.143 (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As we can see, almost any OOXML software has links to some sources of informations and thanks that OOXML software page is close to be useful source of informations. I am thankful, that you did this hard work. I added also some links there and therefore I know, it take much time. I see, that you also sometimes edit ODF software and most of it has no links to sources. If you will agree, I will copy some of your OOXML links also to ODF software when I will have some free time. If anyone who read this article can, please put some source links also to ODF software. It will be really useful if both ODF and OOXML software pages will have same quality. What you think about that ? --213.151.217.134 (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restrict to "notable" programs?

[edit]

This list is pretty long. Many of the entries (for example "Bean", "docx4all", "NextOffice Next Writer", ...) don't have any wikipedia entries of their own. If they don't deserve their own wikipedia page (even a page for the manufacturer), then should they be in this list? Wouldn't restricting the list to those with internal links make the list much more readable? Thrapper (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

[edit]

This page opens with "The Office Open XML format (OOXML), is an open and free document file format ..." - this phrase was discussed at great great length on the Office Open XML page, with many views for and against. In the end an alternative formulation was given. Are there any objections to bringing this page's introduction more in line with the others? Thrapper (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date template

[edit]

LibreOffice is missing, Go-oo (which LO superseded) is present, it's not clear what else is way out of date, hence tag - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now, two years later, I bothered fixing it myself ;-) I also tweeted asking for more help - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that many are discontinued or no longer in active development, it would be very helpful to easily know which ones. One way to identify them would be to change the background colour of their names in the tables and append (discontinued) to the name. They shouldn't automatically be deleted because they may still be in use & are useful for comparison to newer.

Here is a good visual example: Comparison of web browsers has "Browsers listed on a light purple background are discontinued."
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Comparison of Office Open XML software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Comparison of Office Open XML software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_Office_Open_XML_software&oldid=1199566777"