@mkljczk @jonxion @libreoffice
It's been many years since I actually read the specifications, but I was not convinced that ODF was particularly good in this regard this when I did.
OOXML had a bunch of things like the infamous 'typeset like Word 97' entry, but they were clearly marked in OOXML as for legacy compatibility (like emoji in Unicode, until the Unicode Consortium went silly). It also has a bunch of things like assuming everyone knows how the Windows GDI drawing model works. It is an objectively terrible standard.
ODF and OOXML were both rushed through standardisation too quickly and both were bad specifications.
ODF was much shorter than OOXML and that was partly because a lot of things were underspecified, people implementing it just did what OpenOffice did and had to use OpenOffice as a reference because it was the only way to know what you needed.
It is uncontroversial to say that OOXML is terrible. But it is a logical fallacy to say 'X is bad, Y is not X, therefore Y is good.
@david_chisnall @mkljczk @jonxion @libreoffice No "layout before format before content" document type is ever good. But that's besides the point at this stage. Really happy at least one more vendor lock-in tool is off the table.
Now for the rest of Europe to truly adopt this (both odt and ods).