Save as formats explored

Bryan Quigley gquigs at
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:
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 mailing list