Why it's not compatible with this kind of MS WORD table?

[wuqingping]

Previously, I am an end user of Microsoft Office. Now I have migrated to OpenOffice. The current version of OO I am using is 2.3.1 which running in Linux environment. Strangely, I found out that the OO can not display correctly with many kinds of table created in MS WORD attached as attachment. How to make OO to be full compatible with MS Office? At least, to be compatible with the fundamental features of MS Office as so many MS Office documentation existing.

Thanks a lot.

Here is the attachment:

[Hagar Delest]

to be compatible with the fundamental features of MS Office as so many MS Office documentation existing.

You're kidding I hope. MS Office formats being completely closed, there is absolutely no specification available anywhere. Even MS Products have sometimes difficulties with old documents !! The import/export filters for them are made by reverse engineering.

[RonIA]

+1
(My goodness this got long. Sorry for the rant.)
Microsoft has built its empire on making sure you get hooked on the format which "only they can render properly".

It's kind of like buying a Ford(tm) car. But the only kind of gasoline you can run in it is Ford Gas (which doesn't work in other manufacturers vehicles). The only kind of tires that will fit are Ford Tires (and no other manufacturers vehicles). The only type of oil that will work is Ford Oil (which will not work in other manufacturers vehicles). All the nuts and bolts are not Imperial or Metric, but Ford Dimensioned (which of course will not work with any other manufacturers vehicles. Now there may be some companies that would start to reverse engineer all the proprietary fuel, tires, oil, tools, etc. But they were never given the exact specifications, they had to analyze the products and figure EVERYTHING out about them. Would they be 100% compatible? Not possible. Now take this back to the early 20th century. If Henry Ford had decided to do this back when the main vehicle on the road was the Model T, would he have been able to block out other manufacturers? Once it became apparent that the most convenient thing to do was to buy a Ford, Henry could easily decide to spend $0 on improving the product. You really had no choice as 98% of all filling stations only sold Ford Gas, 98% of tire stores only carried Ford Tires, 98%... you get the idea.

Let's take Ford(tm) out for a current test drive. They built the car to drive on a widely available type of fuel and tell you what it is, i.e. minimum 87 octane unleaded. They design it to use standard size tires and tell you exactly what size and specifications are necessary for tires. Same for oil and fasteners. By using standard, openly designed and specified components and consumables, they allow you, the consumer to freely use their product to accomplish your goals. They also allow you to have one set of wrenches at home to work on both your Ford and your Honda autos.

The first example is similar to Microsoft (and MS Office in particular). When it was released Wordperfect was the dominant word processor. But through shrewed business deals, they started getting MS Word (and later MS Office) pre-installed on computers. Over time, the hidden .doc format was being used by more and more people. Without publishing exactly what is going on inside the format they are able to control your buying habits. It is just more convenient to buy MS Office, so they can charge $$$ for an upgrade that has 1-3% improvement for the average user. A good example is their current MS Office 2007. With the "innovation" they have put into it, most users are perfectly content to stay with the word processor they are currently using. However, they are working with computer manufacturers to bundle "trial versions" of MS Office 2007 on them. After a couple of months, the "trial version" says goodbuy <yes intentional< Since it has been saving the files in the new MS Word format you are forced to buy MS Office 2007 because that is the only software that can even open those files. (Don't listen to Microsoft's lies about it being an open format, it is 6000 pages of specifications that has so many proprietary sections in it, no one has a chance of properly implementing the whole standard.)

The second example is more like OpenOffice.org and other open-source applications. Use a format that was created in the open, that anyone can review and write an application to use. (OpenDocument Format, [ODF]). If you choose to stay with OpenOffice.org, you can use this format, if you choose to use an alternative (for example Abiword, KOffice, Wordperfect (in beta testing), Google Docs, etc. etc.) you are free to do so. If there are shortcomings in this format, they are being worked on by a number of entities, but because this is an open format, it doesn't hide its inner workings.

Now, Microsoft with all its programming capabilities should be able to have these formats integrated into MS Office in a couple of months. The documentation for them are readily available. They have chosen not to do so. This would not accomplish their goal of locking in new users (and current users who will need to upgrade so as to read/edit documents created with MS Office formats) and then there will be no need for them to support anything other than their own formats again. Instead of tooting their own horn about how much better THEIR new format is, why don't they listen to customers and build in the ability to use the formats the customers want? Comes down to one word, control.

I could go on, but suffice to say, Microsoft should be able to write a filter for ODF very easily, but they have chosen not to. Which format would I prefer to store my files for "indefinite" long term storage in? One where if a particular company should decide to stop supporting it (read Microsoft) I won't be able to find software, or even have software written to read them because only that company knows how things are stored in the format. Or, in a format that is completely documented and is not controlled by a single entity. If OpenOffice.org were taken off the market for whatever reason tomorrow, I have other choices, I could even have new software written to access MY data.

I had better stop now. I am sure there are some things in this post that are not as clear as they could be, and some people would argue with certain points, but it comes down the this for me. My data VS Microsoft's data. Who should be in control of how I view MY data?

[Bill]

to be compatible with the fundamental features of MS Office as so many MS Office documentation existing.

You're kidding I hope. MS Office formats being completely closed, there is absolutely no specification available anywhere. Even MS Products have sometimes difficulties with old documents !! The import/export filters for them are made by reverse engineering.

I could be wrong, but I think wuqingping meant "documents" instead of "documentation".

[foxcole]

Well said, Ron.

But all that aside, there's nothing obvious about those sample Word tables that looks all that complicated. I've successfully opened Word documents containing much more complex tables than these. I apologize that I don't have time to delve into the formatting in Word to figure out what it contains that isn't converting correctly---but I will have time later tonight, if no one comes up with anything in the meantime.

The bottom line is, these tables should be fine but aren't, and we should find out why. Maybe it's a language setting in Writer. Maybe it's a formatting issue in Word.

[Hagar Delest]

The bottom line is, these tables should be fine but aren't, and we should find out why.

+1.
Nothing compilcated here, just separate tables that are merged in Writer. No time neither to check it today but I think there should be a fix.

[Bill]

What was used to produce this file? I opened the file with Word 2000 and used "Save As" to save it under a different name. The new file opened fine in Writer 2.3.1 and Writer dev-2.4. After opening the original file in Word 2000, adding a space, deleting it, then saving the file, it also opened properly in Writer 2.3.1 and Writer dev-2.4.

[Hagar Delest]

I'm wondering if the pages have not been configured with a vertical centering. The content has been imported in frames, hence the missing parts hidden because the frame is bigger than the page. You've to display the document in Web layout and select the content of the frames then cut and paste it in the document.

[Bill]

I'm wondering if the pages have not been configured with a vertical centering. The content has been imported in frames, hence the missing parts hidden because the frame is bigger than the page. You've to display the document in Web layout and select the content of the frames then cut and paste it in the document.

There is no vertical centering when opened in Word 2000. In Word 2000, I see three tables nested in a fourth one-cell table. After saving a copy of the file in Word 2000, the copy opens properly in Writer with each nested table in a frame.

Unfortunately, cutting and pasting isn't going to fix the tables. When nested tables are imported from DOC files, the nested tables are imported in frames. In this case, the frames in Writer are too big for the page because the tables haven't been imported correctly, making the tables are too large. If the table layout were correct, the frames would fit easily. I can't test for possible causes since any modification I make to the original document using Word 2000 causes the modified file to be imported correctly.