Do any of you guys know if applications like OOo has a different internal object model? Is an ODF-document loaded into something equivilant to an XML DOM?

Adobe's own explanation of differences between PDF and "editable document formats"

The wookie here is the lack of native ODF support in older versions of MS Office, together with the earlier-announced intent to develop a new special API for other vendors to add native file suport via MS Office plug-ins. As part of its previous effort to backport OOXML support to earlier versions of Office and to port it to Office for the Mac, Microsoft engineers internally added OOXML support using the Office 2003 native file support to the Office 2003 native file support plug-in APIs, ripped it out of Office 2003 for Office 2007, wrapped it as a module with the same interface as the older APIs, then back and cross ported the module to the earlier versions and Office for the Mac. The new APIs for use by competitors must of necessity be integrated with the existing module. Anytime Microsoft needs to issue a bug fix for OOXML in the earlier versions, it would seem that the most efficient manner for Micriosoft to do so would be a patch for all versions that support OOXML. A patch that adds ODF support for the other Office versions would seem to be a fairly trivial task that could be rolled out with the patches that bring the older versions up to date with the final version of ISO/IEC OOXML In my view, the only conceivable reason for the new APIs is to limit the Office functionality available to competitors who write plug-ins for Office.

Another key point in the silver lining here is that Microsoft will add native support for ODF to Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 "and beyond". However support for ODF in previous versions of Microsoft Office will not be native but through the CleverAge Converter on SourceForge. It will in other words be XSLT-based translation of ODF to/from OOXML with the known issues with translation such as bad quality and performance.

http://idippedut.dk/post/2008/05/Document-translation-sucks-(When-Rob-is-right2c-hes-right).aspx

ODF approval in ISO

The ISO-page lists the date of publication as November 30th 2006.

Hi, Jesper. according to another article I found later, the new APIs (I assume it should be plural rather than singlular) will allow addition of formats other than ODF, so I apparently got that part wrong.
On the Sharepoint example, I wasn't sufficiently clear and apologize. Assume you create a document in MS Office that invokes Sharepoint functionality, then you save it as ODF and ship it off to a co-worker using OOo. The OOo user wants to send it back to you for further processing. But if saving to ODF in Office wipes the Sharepoint metadata, you've got data loss on the outbound trip.
The path you suggest would work at least in theory (I haven't heard any reports yet of the documentation on the Sharepoint APIs) if Sharepoint were used as an intermediary hub. But the Sharepoiint document may not be accessible to the co-worker, e.g., because of page security settings. I anticipate that there would be many cases where only one end of the trip has access to the hub, so there's a need to keep the path open that bypasses the hub and for it to be non-lossy.
There is an article on BetaNews by Scott Fulton that interviews a couple of the Softies. They said that there will be lots of Office functionality that won't be able to be saved in ODF, that they're not planning a compatability mode that would block use of features that can't be saved to ODF, and that they're not planning to go beyond the features specified in ODF 1.1. So if they carry through on what they said, the outbound trip to ODF implementations will be lossy.
I think the real problem with the Sharepoint specs and other documentation Microsoft is releasing is that it isn't in a standard where a technical committee could say yea or nay on whether it is suffiiciently specific and where the specs can be made vendor-neutral. In other words, that Micrsooft is in control of the specifiation rather than a standards body. Microsoft got away so far with creating a de facto standard for the line of business functionality that the OOXML spec says is one of the two major justifications for Microsoft having its own personal internatinal standard. But the OOXML spec doesn't specify the functionality offered to justify it. Same situation as with the justification based on the need for compatibility with legacy documents but no specification of the binary formats in OOXML. (IBTW, I'm not an ODF fan and I'm not coming from that direction. I have issues with standards that don't place everyone on an equal competitive footing.)

Hi, Jesper. according to another article I found later, the new APIs (I assume it should be plural rather than singlular) will allow addition of formats other than ODF, so I apparently got that part wrong.
On the Sharepoint example, I wasn't sufficiently clear and apologize. Assume you create a document in MS Office that invokes Sharepoint functionality, then you save it as ODF and ship it off to a co-worker using OOo. The OOo user wants to send it back to you for further processing. But if saving to ODF in Office wipes the Sharepoint metadata, you've got data loss on the outbound trip.
The path you suggest would work at least in theory (I haven't heard any reports yet of the documentation on the Sharepoint APIs) if Sharepoint were used as an intermediary hub. But the Sharepoiint document may not be accessible to the co-worker, e.g., because of page security settings. I anticipate that there would be many cases where only one end of the trip has access to the hub, so there's a need to keep the path open that bypasses the hub and for it to be non-lossy.
There is an article on BetaNews by Scott Fulton that interviews a couple of the Softies. They said that there will be lots of Office functionality that won't be able to be saved in ODF, that they're not planning a compatability mode that would block use of features that can't be saved to ODF, and that they're not planning to go beyond the features specified in ODF 1.1. So if they carry through on what they said, the outbound trip to ODF implementations will be lossy.
I think the real problem with the Sharepoint specs and other documentation Microsoft is releasing is that it isn't in a standard where a technical committee could say yea or nay on whether it is suffiiciently specific and where the specs can be made vendor-neutral. In other words, that Micrsooft is in control of the specifiation rather than a standards body. Microsoft got away so far with creating a de facto standard for the line of business functionality that the OOXML spec says is one of the two major justifications for Microsoft having its own personal internatinal standard. But the OOXML spec doesn't specify the functionality offered to justify it. Same situation as with the justification based on the need for compatibility with legacy documents but no specification of the binary formats in OOXML. (IBTW, I'm not an ODF fan and I'm not coming from that direction. I have issues with standards that don't place everyone on an equal competitive footing.)

The Third-party translators discussion of the forthcoming new API suggests that it is for ODF only, and thereby implicitly that it will not be a tool for accessing the full functionaolity of MS Word, i.e., that only the functionality specified in ODF 1.1 will be available. E.g., no control of Sharepoint functionality or manipulation of the Microsoft cloud through the API from OpenOffice.org via ODF. .

The Microsoft cloud depends heavily on OOXML, and that is likely not going to change. Are you saying that you'd prefer a plug-in mechanism in SharePoint as well? I believe the protocols used by SharePoint are included in the specs now provided.

Won't that do (apart from the non-commercial usage of the specs)