I’m figuring out how to use LibreOffice for government organizations required to use ODF 1.3 for standards compliance. When I select ODF 1.3 the error message “Not using ODF 1.3 Extended may cause information to be lost.”
I think you can go ahead without fear. Since you tagged specifically writer, I assume you’re primarily interested in Writer documents.
Generally the kind of documents produced by “government organizations” is in the lower end of the spectrum. They are not sophisticated complex documents with many captioned pictures to be positioned in awkward locations, bibliography, complex synthesised cross-references and smart polymorphic styles.
In addition, staff writing the documents have no idea what styles are and rather direct format.
So you can expect very simple documents structure-wise. You’ll meet more problems with this direct formatting than with standards compliance. I always leave this setting as shipped “from the factory”. I never bumped into problems though I still have non-converted documents with extension .sxw (the extension used in oldest LO releases) and they open fine with apparently no change in layout/format.
Instead, you should concentrate in creating good templates for most common documents (letter, memo, note, report – though this is more complex than the others --, …) and good manuals to explain the automation provided in the templates by automatic style sequencing. The most difficult part is to get people adhesion to the switch and make them aware of differences. People are always reluctant (not to say opposed) to change of habits. So, the challenge is not in the technical choice but in the psycho-social aspects of the change. Remember that the best lock-in argument of the major actor is FUD: Fear that documents can no longer be read or are incompatible with the new tool, Uncertainty on the result quality and instilled Doubt that the competitor can meet the demands of the customer. These are the ingredients you must fight against.
Thanks, @Lupp, I took a look, but it didn’t really answer my question. I also tried to understand the Wiki page on extensions; however, I wasn’t able to truly parse that in my brain.
And thanks, @ajlittoz, for your extensive message.
I think the problem I’m describing above is fuelling the Fear in your FUD. It presents it as if, when the software is used in the legally prescribed way (using ODF 1.3) data will be lost, e.g. documents can no longer be read.
LibreOffice is better for creating accessible and compliant ODF 1.3 than any other tool I know right now. However, in the interface it claims it is incompatible. So, what I am looking for is a list that users can see where they know what functionality they cannot use without data loss, so they can trust the rest works.
Perhaps this doesn’t exist at the moment. I’ll explore what I can do to create a stop-gap solution.
Also, as an aside, I think government documents get quite complex, quickly. They often use elaborate cross mentioning and footnoting schemes. Most of the functionality that is used is in ‘Track Changes’ though, as every document gets written 10 times by 20 different people before it is finalized.
(Reposted as a comment because I accidentally posted it as an answer)
Unfortunately, the listing of things lost on saving to any given format is not implemented. At all. Some even claim, that such a list is useless, and its implementation would take much more human power than it’s worth. They say, that most users don’t want to see such a list. But note that it would be useful at least for some, for any format - including e.g. DOC(X). Some people, facing a usual warning that something may be lost, get so accustomed to it, that ignore it, and disable; and then, at some point, get angry when such a loss finally happens …
Anyway, I believe that @ajlittoz is 100% right that in your specific case, the problem won’t appear. The “extended” is those features that we already implemented, but which haven’t yet made it into the standard (which is indeed a bit conservative). To some extent, you may check List of LibreOffice ODF Extensions. It is not 100% complete, but it is the best source of information (apart from the commit log) that may give you the data you look for.
“‘Direct’ cross-references” to other document locations is not what I describe as “complex synthesised cross-references” which would use less common functions among the fields. Also footnotes are straightforward and don’t add visibly to document structure (though internally they do but in light way).
As you point out, the complexity is not in the document itself but in the work flow. And, by experience, Writer (like Word anyway) is not really fit for team collaborative work because you receive the reviews as separate files (unless you adopt a linear sequential method forward the revised document to the next editor but, then, the full process takes an eternity. The trap is you have no smart and user-friendly way to merge changes from multi-sources.
I have no idea about a document processor which would offer a centralised document with concurrent access from a multitude of contributors (kind of a database to store the document with transactions to record the changes).
Fortunately, most of the time you’re in traditional business context: notes written by a single person, eventually iterated several times. But I agree standards-like or law documents need numerous revisions from many sources before being “print ready”.
Test it. I share documents and want to know if the formatting is not supported across applications. I save my documents in MS formats (docx, xlsx, etc) knowing that some formatting might be lost. Be wary that a feature might be supported, but differently between applications.
.
In this instance, the document would need testing in an app supporting ODF 1.3. Be careful, it’s likely the other app doesn’t disclose the limits to which the format is supported.
There is Odf validator provided by The Document foundation. Instead of automatic detecting, you can select OASIS ODF 1.3 (Conforming).