De nombreux experts XML (notamment Normal Walsh, leader du projet DocBook) déclarent qu'OpenDocument est un format techniquement exemplaire : il allie astucieusement des formats existants et des formats propres (pour les éléments pour lesquels il n'existe pas de standard défini). C'est, au dire de tous, un archétype de l'utilisation de la puissance du XML en terme d'interopérabilité et de réutilisation. À la fois génialement simple et puissant ! James Clark (membre actif du groupe de travail sur XML 1.0 et expert XML internationnal incontesté) a d'ailleurs activement participé à l'élaboration de ce format. Enfin, le standard OpenDocument est décrit en utilisant RELAX NG comme format de schémas (OpenOffice.org utilise pour le moment des DTD), et les fichiers XML produits respectent le 6ème but du XML, à savoir être lisibles par un humain et raisonnablement clairs.Format comparison between ODF and MS XML [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051125144611543](http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051125144611543)
Reuse of standards OpenDocument reuses existing standards whenever possible. It uses SVG for drawings, MathML for equations, etc. This makes the format infinitely more transparent to someone familiar with XML technologies. It also allows you to reuse existing tools that understand these standards. In contrast, Microsoft has decided to reinvent the wheel at every turn. Look back at the example hyperlink above; you'll see that a number of attributes in the OpenDocument are prefixed with xlink:. What is XLink? XLink is the XML Linking Language (XLink) Version 1.0, which is an industry standard for references. Rather than reinventing the wheel, OpenDocument simply uses the existing mechanism. XLink is used in many ways in OpenDocument - for example, embedding images. MS XML and OpenDocument both reference an image file within the ZIP archive.Wikipedia (je sais, on en pense ce qu'on veut mais quand même :) Comparison of OpenDocument with Microsoft XML formats [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenDocument_with(...)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_OpenDocument_with_Microsoft_XML_formats)
Advantages OpenDocument uses a mixed content model, whereas the MS XML format does not. "Non-mixed documents usually represent structured data; mixed documents are usually used to represent narrative. MS XML uses the non-mixed model to represent narrative (word processing). This sort of mismatch leads to awkward markup... The mixed-content model makes more sense, and is closer to what a developer will be familiar to." OpenDocument is similar to XHTML, while MS XML is not. It uses mixed content, marks styles in a similar way, and so on. This makes it easier to transform data accurately between OpenDocument and XHTML, and also simplifies the reuse of existing skills. OpenDocument gives better separation between content and presentation. "Both formats give you some separation, and neither format gives you perfect separation. But OpenDocument goes much further in that direction." OpenDocument hyperlinks are designed to be easier to process (they do not require processing a separate file). OpenDocument reuses existing standards whenever possible. It uses SVG for drawings, MathML for equations, XLink for linking, Dublin Core for metadata, etc. "This makes the format infinitely more transparent to someone familiar with XML technologies. It also allows you to reuse existing tools that understand these standards." In contrast, the Microsoft XML formats do not use appropriate standards, but reinvent everything, imposing significant additional costs to translate them to standard formats.Microsoft position on OpenDocument support [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_position_on_OpenDocum(...)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_position_on_OpenDocument_support)
Independent implementations Microsoft's letter to Massachusetts claimed that all current OpenDocument implementations were based on OpenOffice.org and its derivatives. However, this turns out to be false. For example, KOffice is a completely independent implementation of OpenDocument not based on OpenOffice.org—their main functions have been implemented independently, and even their code for reading and writing the OpenDocument format was developed independently (Wallin, 2005). This is important, because independent implementations from the same specification are generally considered the best way to find and fix any problems in a specification. For example, the IETF even requires two independent implementations for its final stage of standardization. The first independent application to implement OpenDocument was KOffice. OpenDocument was developed starting from an XML format developed for OpenOffice.org; OpenOffice.org has since been updated so that it also supports OpenDocument. [edit] Missing functionality? Another rationale used is that OpenDocument is missing some important functionality, though Microsoft has not identified any particular missing functionality (making this claim difficult to prove or refute). Many are very skeptical of this claim; ZDNet said, "Does OpenDocument, which is the result of a lot of hard work from people fully versed in contemporary corporate computing, really fail at the very things it was designed to provide?", and closes urging Microsoft to add support for OpenDocument (ZDNet UK, September 2, 2005). InfoWorld's Neil McAllister noted that even if OpenDocument were missing important functionality, this statement is inconsistent; Microsoft Office already supports formats with far less functionality than OpenDocument (such as HTML and ASCII text). Instead, he believes that the real reason Microsoft is not supporting OpenDocument is because "An open document standard won't help Microsoft lock in its loyal addicts—excuse me, customers—so an open standard isn't in Microsoft's business interests. Microsoft refuses to support OpenDocument; it doesn't get more bald-faced than that" (McAllister 2005).