To the people who are taking a crack at the author: you very much missed the point of this article, which isn't a crack at OOo, nor is it skewed. The problem for real people in the real world is that they have to interact with corporate employees who have had MSO thrust upon them -- this is what they use, for every-day exchange of formatted data.

Most of them (and unfortunately, especially the ones who use an office suite the most) don't know about OOo, don't understand how anyone else couldn't possibly be able to read their precious MSXML-based document, and don't even understand how to change the saving file format away from the standard default -- MSXML. So, there's an obvious gap for MSXML support in OOo -- if there wasn't, then the OOo guys wouldn't be working on it. The problem is that, despite MS's claims to the contrary, the format isn't completely open, or usable, and apparently, even MSO2007 doesn't actually do what the xml inside an MSXML document might suggest.

Personally, I hate the ribbon, and I've wasted more time trying to find things in that blasted ribbon than I've spent actually doing anything productive on MSO2007; also, I'm particularly miffed with the take that MS has on MSO2007 such that the application is always skinned, refusing to take on the look and feel of the rest of your OS. Yes, I know about the "other two" skins. They are just as atrocious when it comes to integrating with a low-contrast, muted color scheme. Incidentally, did you know that the theming engine in MSO2007 is hard-coded to switch off when your chrome color is black? That's why the default high-contrast themes work with it. And the theming is the sole reason that I downgraded to MS02003 -- I have to use outlook, and I'm tired of it looking like a dog's breakfast.

The author's preference for the MSO interface aside, this article raises some fairly valid points:
1) The MSXML format is repeatedly showing itself to not be the open vestige of goodness it was touted to be
2) The OOo guys, whilst working hard, and producing great stuff, still have a rocky road ahead of them for full MSXML integration. Personally, I wish them all the best

Comments on this article also raise a fairly valid point about not being a fanboy. There are Really Real people who have to interact with people who don't know any better and spew out MSXML documents. These people need the help of the OOo team, and applaud their every effort, all the while sitting in amazement at how MS have, once again, not only managed to cause interoperability issues for FOSS users, but have also managed to make them slander each other. Well done.

Disappointed with OpenOffice.org's compatibility with MS Office? Wow. You have some amazing logic there, fellow. Perhaps you should read Groklaw.net to get a better understanding of what you are writing about. Step away from the keyboard. You're doing more harm than good.

>>>Wasn't the whole point of XML file formats for Office to make the documents more compatible with other software?

You're new to this planet, obviously.

The whole point of XML files formats for Office was to create an "ISO standard" that nobody else could implement, but that:
(1) Microsoft's salesdroids could trumpet as "standards" to pointy-haired bosses to get them to purchase Office 2007 licenses and
(2) Microsoft's lawyers could trumpet to regulators as examples of their efforts at ensuring "interoperability"
...all without actually having an interoperable "standard" and thereby spiking any competition.