Created attachment 55177 [details] Recovered ODT Writer document displayed in Word and Writer All OpenDocument files created with LibO 3.4 or 3.5 are considered as invalid by Microsoft Office The ODT documents I've created with LibO 3.4 and 3.5 are still considered as invalid by Microsoft Office 2010. Word 2010 offers to recover the file content. If we let it do, most of the file content is recovered. After saving the recovered document in Word (still as OpenDocument format), the borders I had applied on titles and paragraphs are removed. If I reopen this recovered document in Word, it's no more considered as invalid, but the borders have disappeared. If I re-add the missing borders in Word and open again the document in LibO 3.4 or 3.5 or Word : the content is well displayed. This feature is thus managed by Word. If I save this document with LibO, Word considers it as invalid, but after a second recovery the borders are displayed in Word ! I reproduced this invalid behavior with .ODS, .ODP, .ODT, but not with .RTF. Can someone confirm this problem with Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 (Microsoft Office 2007 can manage OpenDocument format only from the SP2) ?
Created attachment 55214 [details] simple test document created by LO-3.5.0-beta2 that is considered as invalid by MS Office 2010 I opened new document in Writer and just entered the word "Hello".
It would affect many users => added to most annoying bugs. William, it would be great if you could attach your more complex document with the borders and tables that is considered wrong by MS Office. I am afraid that there might be more incompatibilities that are not visible by the simple hello.odt. If your document includes sensitive data, please remove most of it and replace the remaining strings with random words. We do not need the many elements repeated. For example, one table and one modified border should be enough to detect problems with them.
i'm not sure this is an OOo/LO problem: AFAIK MS Office only supports ODF 1.1, while OOo/LO write ODF 1.2 extended by default. i don't have any MS Office around, can somebody check if it works when you set the ODF version to ODF 1.2 or ODF 1.1 in Tools->Options->Load/Save->General? maybe MS Office thinks that any ODF document with a version > 1.1 is invalid, and we can't do anything about that.
oh, forgot to mention that the ODF Toolkit validator says the attached hello.odt is valid ODF 1.2.
I've tried to change the ODF version. My conslusions are: - 1.2 (non-extended) : non-managed by MSO 2010 (document still considered as invalid). - used 1.0, 1.1 format option : MSO 2010 can read it, no invalid dialog displayed But I don't know if this document is saved as 1.0 or 1.1 version. How can I use the ODF toolkit validator to see which version of ODF it is used? Despite I saved the ODF file as 1.0 or 1.1 version, the borders I applied on paragraphs or titles are still missing when opened in MSO 2010.
The .odt document is a zip archive. You might uncompress it. You might try to add the extension .zip instead of .odt. Or open it using an unzip application. Then you could check the included file I see 'manifest:version="1.2"' in META-INF/manifest.xml when the file is in the format 1.2. I am not sure if this is the right and best way but it looks reasonable.
The missing borders is a particular import/export problem. Please, open separate issue for this. I wonder if it has been solved last week as the bug 44322 and the bug 43862.
the ODF Toolkit validator is now an Apache project: http://incubator.apache.org/odftoolkit/conformance/ODFValidator.html but the web service on the ODF Toolkit site doesn't seem to work; Google found me this site, which does work: http://odf-validator.rhcloud.com/ of course the validator has a command line interface as well, so downloading the source is also an option; there doesn't seem to be a binary download yet. OOo and LO cannot actually save ODF version 1.0 files, the oldest version is ODF 1.1. but that shouldn't cause any problems in practice because ODF 1.1 just adds some accessibility stuff that can just be ignored. (in contrast, for ODF 1.2 there are some new and different ways of doing things that would be unsupported by an ODF 1.0/1.1 reader).
i just found that the ODF 1.1 schema has a bug: there are several attributes in the 3.1.18 Document Statistics that are missing the meta: namespace prefix; this causes ODF 1.1 strict validation to spuriously fail with: unexpected attribute "meta:non-whitespace-character-count"
Created attachment 55328 [details] trivial test doc from LO master, ODF 1.1
Created attachment 55329 [details] test1.1, but changed all office:version from 1.1 to 1.2 this does not validate as ODF 1.2
Created attachment 55330 [details] same as previous, but removed the text:outline-style element this removes un-necessary text:outline-style from the previous attachment, which brings it a step closer to being valid ODF 1.2
Created attachment 55331 [details] same as previous, but add the manifest:version="1.2" attribute only change is that this adds the ODF 1.2 required manifest:version attribute, and this now validates as ODF 1.2 (conforming).
can somebody please test which of the 4 document i just attached are considered invalid by MS Office?
Created attachment 55334 [details] Untouched new ODT document created directly with Word 2010
(In reply to comment #14) > can somebody please test which of the 4 document i just attached are considered > invalid by MS Office? Well done for the idea of these tests :P Only the 4th doc is considered as invalid by Word 2010. I've just provided you an untouched ODT document I directly created from scratch with Word 2010. It will be helpful for you IMHO. Regards.
thanks, very interesting that the difference that makes MS Office consider the document invalid is the manifest:version. in ODF 1.2, the root element of the manifest has an attribute manifest:version, which is mandatory and must have the value "1.2". in ODF 1.1, this attribute does not exist. in other words, there is no way anybody can write ODF 1.2 files that are both valid and non-objectionable to MS Office 2010. thus, resolving NOTOURBUG.
>there is no way anybody can write ODF 1.2 files >that are both valid and non-objectionable to MS Office 2010. Ok. NOTOURBUG. But imagine user who doesn't know what the difference beetwen ODF 1.1 and 1.2, likely he doesn't know what is ODF (only .odt, etc.). He saves document and then this document can't be opened with MSO 2010. What he decided? "LO not working". I think in Tools->Options->Load/Save should be following ODF format version 1.0/1.1 (compatible with MSO 2010) 1.2 1.2 Extended (recommended) May be this option should be more noticeable, even as a question on first start.
This is a real LibOffice problem for me. I did some tests with writer from latest OOo release using three proposed ODF formats (1.0/1.1, 1.2, 1.2 extended). All saved documents are opened by Microsoft Word 2007 SP2. I used the same formats with writer of LibOffice 3.4.4 and 3.5.0beta2. Only the documents saved following ODF 1.0/1.1 can be opened by Word. The documents saved following 1.2 and 1.2 extended are considered as invalid, but they are recupered correctly. As I exchange the documents with quite a lot of people, consideration of this issue as "NOTOURBUG" and "CLOSED" is discouraging for me. Sorry for saying that.
the fact that OOo up to version 3.3 did not write the manifest:version attribute was a bug: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=115789 the next release (as Apache OpenOffice) will have the fix for this included, and now that it finally writes valid ODF 1.2, MS Office will claim that the documents it writes are invalid. Microsoft's approach to implementing standards is discouraging to me.
Here is the relevant ESC minute from our discussion yesterday: * all docs created by LibO 3.4+ considered invalid by MS Office + we do the right thing: putting 1.2 in the manifest version (Thorsten) + recent bug-fix in a 3.4 CWS + ODF 1.2 makes the version mandatory, and must have value=1.2 + if it is seen, MS Office will claim it is invalid. + it's not possible for us to write valid ODF 1.2 docs about which MS Office doesn't complain + MS Office offers to 'repair' & import it + that looks scary. + it's not our bug + Need to release-note this: + avoid recommending the legacy 1.1 format due to data loss concerns
Someone have send a mail to MS ? I think if it will be better if it's an official people who send this mail and no a simple user. And a copy of this mail in this post could be a good idea. This post is open, MS could not say: we don't know. If you ask me, i think we should wait. The goal of ODF is the interoperability. And the users of MS Office will be afraid of this advertisement and think ODF is not a good format.
I know this is not appropriate for a bug report. But... is there further information of what specific data loss can occur between odf 1.2 and odf 1.1? I am tempted to save docs as ODF 1.1 in order to remain compatible with my Office-using colleagues. Any pointer would be appreciated, thanks
@Sebastian: An overview of changes is given at http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.2/cs01/OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-part1.html#__RefHeading__1420418_253892949 That, plus the entire OpenFormula specification of http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.2/cs01/OpenDocument-v1.2-cs01-part2.html However, MS-Office at least up to 2010 does not preserve spreadsheet formulas in ODF.
FWIW, MS Office 2013 (currently in beta) can open and edit ODF 1.2 files.
I confirm. Resolved in MS Office 2013