[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sat, 14 May 2011 07:33:57 +0100 tom wrote: > On 13/05/11 18:26, Grant Sewell wrote: > > <snip> > > *Some* documents are in proprietary formats. Not all. > > > > Grant. > > > For proprietary read 'human and not computer'. Its very very easy to > take computer interpretable data and present it for humans to read. > Its not so easy the other way round. To my PC an ODF document is just > garbage compared to the same data in an XML file which can be made > human readable with a style sheet. I'd guess than most homes and > offices have encrypted (and lost) >90% of their data in documents. > Tom te tom te tom Funny, I've just taken a random (fairly small) ODF spreadsheet document on my computer, renamed it unzipped it (since it seems to be a fairly standard zip compressed file), and this is what I found: content.xml: XML document text meta.xml: XML document text mimetype: ASCII text, with no line terminators settings.xml: XML document text styles.xml: XML document text META-INF/manifest.xml: XML document text Thumbnails/thumbnail.png: PNG image, 225 x 256, 8-bit/color RGB, non-interlaced Now, as far as I can tell almost all the above components of that ODF document are XML, which is exactly what you wanted. I'm not entirely sure I understand how you can say "To my PC and ODF document is just garbage compared to the same data in an XML file" when an ODF document comprises almost exclusively XML files. Sure there is a PNG file but I'm not sure normal XML is the best way of storing 225x256 pixels of 8bpp image data. I have no doubt it *could* be done, but is it necessarily the best way of doing so? Grant. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq