Playing ping pong with ODF version; does it pose a danger to the end user.

[Thorsten Behrens]

Hi Drew,

Drew Jensen wrote:
> In the case of all Google and MSO the files open up without any kind
> of warning about the ODF version being 1.3.
>
Ah cool, that's good to hear, thx for checking (MSO used to infamously
complain about odf1.2 when that was new)!

> So, I was wondering if this is a potential problem for the end users
> and if so should we recommend that they change from the new default
> in LO of ODF 1.43 (a non standard) back to 1.2 if they are expecting
> to share for editing with other editors?
>
Huh. So there's no good, universal advise I'm willing to give, except
that you'll probably get nasty surprises with _any_ kind of complex
office documents (regardless of the format being odf, ooxml, rtf or
what else), if you read & write them across a wider variety of
versions & different software products.

For LibreOffice users, I'd always recommend to leave the ODF version
at its default, if you don't want to lose features on save. For
document interop, I'd recommend hiring a consultant who can look at
the individual setup & stash of documents. Since the optimal solution
might vary. ;)

In the abstract, there's no fundamental difference (yet) in interop
fidelity for ODF 1.3 extended, and ODF 1.2 extended (both hold content
only LibreOffice-technolgy applications will fully read & write). The
math might change if e.g. MSO puts work into good ODF 1.3 support
though.

My 2 cents,

-- Thorsten
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20210422/9a0c1cd1/attachment.sig>