Save as formats explored
gquigs at gmail.com
Mon Nov 11 10:28:24 PST 2013
> I know people who still use StarOffice 5.2 so there are surely people out
> there who still might use these formats.
I am happy to look at actual use cases for these formats. Why do they
still use StarOffice 5.2? (Is this more common than I think?, Are
they using it on a OS platform that is still supported?) What format
do you send them documents in? What's keeping them from upgrading to
> If you can provide some numbers that show that nobody has used this feature in a long time I think we can agree to remove it.
All the data I can really provide is from Google filetype searches:
Here is ODT: https://encrypted.google.com/search?hl=en&q=filetype%3Asxw#hl=en&q=-facebook+filetype:odt
Note that there don't appear to be many false positives.
Here is SXW:
Note the abundance of false positives. If you switch it to past year
on either, for SXW you get two pages of results (all false
Like the Word 95/6.0 file formats, I would expect more people use this
accidentally then still use it. And yes, the results aren't loss of
data; just loss of time and possibly sending someone a document they
can't open. (Remember Office 2007/2010 can open ODF now)
This is the same reason I want the Flat XML versions to still sound
technical, so that average users don't accidentally pick it. Users
will ignore options they don't understand.
When I don't see a need for saving to the format anymore and I think
there is a high chance that users will accidentally pick the format
that's when I propose removing it. As for removing clutter, that's
also important. We don't have the 80/20 rule in effect for file
formats and I'm not proposing it. I would guess we closer to a
99.999/000.001 ratio before we start removing a file format. There is
a real cost in users looking at options that will never be useful to
*Facebook appears to be spamming Google results...
More information about the LibreOffice