Thread: conversion to .odt
View Single Post
Old 09-29-2019, 11:56 PM   #10
DNSB
Bibliophagist
DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DNSB's Avatar
 
Posts: 46,564
Karma: 169115148
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Device: Kobo Sage, Libra Colour, Lenovo M8 FHD, Paperwhite 4, Tolino epos
Quote:
Originally Posted by BetterRed View Post
@DNSB - I don't think the OP wanted to convert DOCX to ODT, I think his issue was that the 'best' way to get something that Writer can edit is to convert what you have (epub, mobi, pdf etc) to DOCX. His objection to doing that was that the DOCX format is not a standards based format.
You're right. I mis-read what he was trying to do.

If he really objects to docx on the grounds that it is not open source, he could always export as RTF. My personal opinion is that since docx is a zip wrapper around a collection of Office Open XML files, arguing that odt is better since it is open source is not going to fly.

As for the argument from @Fiat Lux that calibre should support the ISO/IEC 26300-3:2015 standard but not the ISO/IEC 29500-1:2016 standard claiming that ISO/IEC 29500-1:2016 is "a standard for legacy documents, and as such, usage for non-legacy documents is highly discouraged". Oddly the ISO document, part 4 (Transitional Migration Features) does discuss legacy markup for transitional documents. Otherwise, I could find no mention that ISO/IEC 29500-1:2016 is for legacy documents. There was quite a bit of discussion around whether 29500 was really required when 26300 covered much the same territory however duplication of effort when it comes to standards is close to a hallmark of the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. Just look at the ISO/IEC 29166 document covering translation between ISO/IEC 26300 and ISO/IEC 29500 document formats.
DNSB is offline   Reply With Quote