The cost of ODF and OOXML

To avoid the pitfalls mentioned in the article, most places I know have stopped sending MS Word or ODFs but instead use PDFs.<p>Converting documents from Word to ODF or vice-versa is full of issues as no conversion here is 1-to-1 (same applies for conversions of e.g. old MS Word formats to newer ones - don't know for various ODF implementations).<p>If you don't collaborate on the document writing, IMHO pdf is the best representation for both of the formats and all those offices that require ODFs instead of MS Word do accept pdf files as well.<p>Creating a pdf from a MS Word / ODF file is a matter of seconds to 1-2 minutes for very large documents.

When you do not have any facts to back-up a preposterous claim, you just make up stuff as you go along. This is (somewhat predictable)from Microsoft after their initial efforts to break the standard.

Glyn Moody just makes up facts to fit his own agenda and then when you point them out to him he just says you're missing the overall point. He creates more FUD than the organisations he complains about.

So this is what MS presented to the UK government and the UK government didn't hear a response from an open source representative?

I have always wondered why Open Document standard would not be based around HTML instead of inventing new XML schema? Can someone who has more insight on ODF/OOXML tell me why HTML is not suitable for office document format?