User: jpmcc Date: 2008-12-17 17:59:58+0000 Modified: native-lang/www/planet/atom.xml native-lang/www/planet/index.html native-lang/www/planet/opml.xml native-lang/www/planet/rss10.xml native-lang/www/planet/rss20.xml
Log: Planet run at Wed Dec 17 18:00:40 GMT 2008 File Changes: Directory: /native-lang/www/planet/ =================================== File [changed]: atom.xml Url: http://native-lang.openoffice.org/source/browse/native-lang/www/planet/atom.xml?r1=1.1076&r2=1.1077 Delta lines: +38 -23 --------------------- --- atom.xml 2008-12-17 11:59:48+0000 1.1076 +++ atom.xml 2008-12-17 17:59:55+0000 1.1077 @@ -5,9 +5,45 @@ <link rel="self" href="http://native-lang.openoffice.org/planet/atom.xml"/> <link href="http://native-lang.openoffice.org/planet/"/> <id>http://native-lang.openoffice.org/planet/atom.xml</id> - <updated>2008-12-17T12:00:38+00:00</updated> + <updated>2008-12-17T18:00:45+00:00</updated> <generator uri="http://www.planetplanet.org/";>Planet/2.0 +http://www.planetplanet.org</generator> + <entry xml:lang="en"> + <title type="html">Some thoughts on the Microsoftâs implementation of ODF</title> + <link href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/"/> + <id>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/</id> + <updated>2008-12-17T17:11:34+00:00</updated> + <content type="html"><p>This post is a bit hard to write. Let me just put it this way: If my predictions below are true, it will mean that Microsoft will offer some crippled and low-level support of ODF 1.1 in its next version of Microsoft Office. It will also mean that OpenOffice.org will have gained a competitive edge on the market.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>Now you may wonder why I find it difficult to write down these things. The reason is <a href="http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oic/email/archives/200812/msg00016.html">the recent post of Doug Mahugh</a> in regard of the support of ODF by MS Office. Instead of providing a detailed review on the matter, Doug explains -a bit laboriously- that interoperability does not mean that each implementation has to do things the same way and that some implementations are more extensive than others. We are then being told that Microsoft Office will have limited support in for ODF tables in Word.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>Doug&#8217;s initial point is true: there are differences in implementation of a standard. When you have a truly open standard, you can expect implementers to be able to deliver some reliable implementation of the standard. Of course, it depends of the implementation&#8217;s focus. Suppose for one moment that I&#8217;m in the business of developing and selling IT systems for ATMs. I have an OS that sports an user interface for ATM transactions, another one for administration, and among several other features, an editor that prints out your receipts and the records of your past transactions on demand. One might expect that this editor can support ODF natively and will create ODF documents. These documents are not very complex, and to say it all, they&#8217;re even very basic. All what is required for me is to implement the bare minimum of ODF to be compliant and adequately call myself compliant. The minimum compliance with ODF is my right, as the vendor of the ATM receipts editor. My business is not print complex spreadsheets, nor fancy presentations, no: my business is to allow cash machines to print customers&#8217; receipts of their cash transactions at the ATM, that&#8217;s all.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>Now you have Microsoft&#8217;s bellydancing and basically declaring that they, who sell the âbest office suite on the marketâ (I don&#8217;t make that claim) will offer poor support on ODF because of product limitations. Am I the only one here feeling that Redmond is trying -again-to play games? Any additional information would be welcome at this stage, of course, but the market should pay close attention to this issue.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>I have hailed and declared myself positively satisfied the inclusion of Microsoft in the ODF committees at the OASIS consortium. I have read the contributions of its employees and they were useful and constructive. This being said, Doug&#8217;s blog leaves me with an odd taste in my mouth.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>To be frank, I feel that Doug has been looking for a way to tell us that Microsoft&#8217;s support of ODF will be crappy and that it was intended to be that way. I realize I have no substantial evidence of what I&#8217;m asserting here, but since when does Microsoft speak of the new features of MS Office with a sorry tone?</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>That&#8217;s why I just don&#8217;t know how to properly assess what kind of message Microsoft is sending right now. The way I see it, Microsoft expects customers will stick to Microsoft Office since it also supports an Open Standard, ODF. However, the support of ODF being of poor quality, customers will roll back to Microsoft&#8217;s formats, and life will go on back like it was in the good old days.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>I realize this is all « prospective » thinking, and that there is nothing solid aside Microsoft&#8217;s announcement of poor support of the ODF file format. I am disappointed by these news, though. Once again, Microsoft&#8217;s declarations turn out to be âall hat, no cattleâ. The way out of it is known: Choose OpenOffice.org, choose ODF, choose any other office suite, but not the one that offers partial support of an open standard that puts the users first.</p> +<p><br clear="left" /></p> +<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=109&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_109" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> +</p></content> + <author> + <name>Charles Schulz</name> + <uri>http://standardsandfreedom.net</uri> + </author> + <source> + <title type="html">Moved by Freedom - Powered by Standards » OOo Postings</title> + <subtitle type="html">A weblog by Charles-H. Schulz.</subtitle> + <link rel="self" href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed"/> + <id>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed</id> + <updated>2008-12-17T18:00:41+00:00</updated> + </source> + </entry> + <entry> <title type="html">[Update]Tønder Municipality behind Free IT Software for all Schoolchildren</title> <link href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/12/tnder-municipality-behind-free-it.html"/> @@ -130,7 +166,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">A weblog by Charles-H. Schulz.</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed"/> <id>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/category/ooo-postings/feed</id> - <updated>2008-12-17T06:00:34+00:00</updated> + <updated>2008-12-17T18:00:41+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -487,25 +523,4 @@ </source> </entry> - <entry> - <title type="html">Newsletter</title> - <link href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/11/newsletter.html"/> - <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-8159324126494009918</id> - <updated>2008-11-30T21:31:04+00:00</updated> - <content type="html">The monthly newsletter from the Danish community is out: http://doc.oooforum.dk/Nyhed/2008December.pdf</content> - <author> - <name>Leif Lodahl</name> - <email>[email protected]</email> - <uri>http://lodahl.blogspot.com/</uri> - </author> - <source> - <title type="html">Lodahl's blog</title> - <subtitle type="html">OpenOffice.org, open source software and open standards. These are the three things you can read about on my blog. I'll try to keep you updated on news and events in Denmark. -Okay, sometimes you can read something about Lotus Notes too</subtitle> - <link rel="self" href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> - <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169</id> - <updated>2008-12-17T00:00:43+00:00</updated> - </source> - </entry> - </feed> File [changed]: index.html Url: http://native-lang.openoffice.org/source/browse/native-lang/www/planet/index.html?r1=1.1076&r2=1.1077 Delta lines: +33 -16 --------------------- --- index.html 2008-12-17 11:59:48+0000 1.1076 +++ index.html 2008-12-17 17:59:55+0000 1.1077 @@ -28,8 +28,40 @@ <a href="rss20.xml"><img src="rss2.gif" alt="Link to RSS 2 feed" /></a> </div> -<p><em>Bloggings on native language topics by project members - see <a href="#disclaimer">disclaimer</a>.<br />Last updated: December 17, 2008 12:00 PM GMT</em></p> +<p><em>Bloggings on native language topics by project members - see <a href="#disclaimer">disclaimer</a>.<br />Last updated: December 17, 2008 06:00 PM GMT</em></p> +<h2>December 17, 2008</h2> +<h3> +<a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net"; title="Moved by Freedom - Powered by Standards » OOo Postings"> +Charles Schulz</a> : +<a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/";> +Some thoughts on the Microsoftâs implementation of ODF</a> +</h3> +<p> +<p>This post is a bit hard to write. Let me just put it this way: If my predictions below are true, it will mean that Microsoft will offer some crippled and low-level support of ODF 1.1 in its next version of Microsoft Office. It will also mean that OpenOffice.org will have gained a competitive edge on the market.</p> +<p> </p> +<p>Now you may wonder why I find it difficult to write down these things. The reason is <a href="http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oic/email/archives/200812/msg00016.html";>the recent post of Doug Mahugh</a> in regard of the support of ODF by MS Office. Instead of providing a detailed review on the matter, Doug explains -a bit laboriously- that interoperability does not mean that each implementation has to do things the same way and that some implementations are more extensive than others. We are then being told that Microsoft Office will have limited support in for ODF tables in Word.</p> +<p> </p> +<p>Doug’s initial point is true: there are differences in implementation of a standard. When you have a truly open standard, you can expect implementers to be able to deliver some reliable implementation of the standard. Of course, it depends of the implementation’s focus. Suppose for one moment that I’m in the business of developing and selling IT systems for ATMs. I have an OS that sports an user interface for ATM transactions, another one for administration, and among several other features, an editor that prints out your receipts and the records of your past transactions on demand. One might expect that this editor can support ODF natively and will create ODF documents. These documents are not very complex, and to say it all, they’re even very basic. All what is required for me is to implement the bare minimum of ODF to be compliant and adequately call myself compliant. The minimum compliance with ODF is my right, as the vendor of the ATM receipts editor. My business is not print complex spreadsheets, nor fancy presentations, no: my business is to allow cash machines to print customers’ receipts of their cash transactions at the ATM, that’s all.</p> +<p> </p> +<p>Now you have Microsoft’s bellydancing and basically declaring that they, who sell the âbest office suite on the marketâ (I don’t make that claim) will offer poor support on ODF because of product limitations. Am I the only one here feeling that Redmond is trying -again-to play games? Any additional information would be welcome at this stage, of course, but the market should pay close attention to this issue.</p> +<p> </p> +<p>I have hailed and declared myself positively satisfied the inclusion of Microsoft in the ODF committees at the OASIS consortium. I have read the contributions of its employees and they were useful and constructive. This being said, Doug’s blog leaves me with an odd taste in my mouth.</p> +<p> </p> +<p>To be frank, I feel that Doug has been looking for a way to tell us that Microsoft’s support of ODF will be crappy and that it was intended to be that way. I realize I have no substantial evidence of what I’m asserting here, but since when does Microsoft speak of the new features of MS Office with a sorry tone?</p> +<p> </p> +<p>That’s why I just don’t know how to properly assess what kind of message Microsoft is sending right now. The way I see it, Microsoft expects customers will stick to Microsoft Office since it also supports an Open Standard, ODF. However, the support of ODF being of poor quality, customers will roll back to Microsoft’s formats, and life will go on back like it was in the good old days.</p> +<p> </p> +<p>I realize this is all « prospective » thinking, and that there is nothing solid aside Microsoft’s announcement of poor support of the ODF file format. I am disappointed by these news, though. Once again, Microsoft’s declarations turn out to be âall hat, no cattleâ. The way out of it is known: Choose OpenOffice.org, choose ODF, choose any other office suite, but not the one that offers partial support of an open standard that puts the users first.</p> +<p><br clear="left" /></p> +<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=109&akst_action=share-this"; title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_109" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> +</p></p> +<p> +<em><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/";>by Charles at December 17, 2008 05:11 PM GMT</a></em> +</p> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> <h2>December 16, 2008</h2> <h3> <a href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/"; title="Lodahl's blog"> @@ -409,21 +441,6 @@ <br /> <hr /> <br /> -<h2>November 30, 2008</h2> -<h3> -<a href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/"; title="Lodahl's blog"> -Leif Lodahl</a> : -<a href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/11/newsletter.html";> -Newsletter</a> -</h3> -<p> -The monthly newsletter from the Danish community is out: http://doc.oooforum.dk/Nyhed/2008December.pdf</p> -<p> -<em><a href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/11/newsletter.html";>by Leif Lodahl ([email protected]) at November 30, 2008 09:31 PM GMT</a></em> -</p> -<br /> -<hr /> -<br /> <a id="disclaimer" name="disclaimer"></a> <p><em>Disclaimer: all views expressed on this page are those of the individual contributors, and may not reflect the views of the File [changed]: opml.xml Url: http://native-lang.openoffice.org/source/browse/native-lang/www/planet/opml.xml?r1=1.1076&r2=1.1077 Delta lines: +1 -1 ------------------- --- opml.xml 2008-12-17 11:59:48+0000 1.1076 +++ opml.xml 2008-12-17 17:59:55+0000 1.1077 @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ <opml version="1.1"> <head> <title>Native Language Confederation Planet</title> - <dateModified>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:00:38 +0000</dateModified> + <dateModified>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:00:45 +0000</dateModified> <ownerName>Native Language Confederation</ownerName> <ownerEmail>[email protected]</ownerEmail> </head> File [changed]: rss10.xml Url: http://native-lang.openoffice.org/source/browse/native-lang/www/planet/rss10.xml?r1=1.236&r2=1.237 Delta lines: +24 -8 -------------------- --- rss10.xml 2008-12-16 23:59:54+0000 1.236 +++ rss10.xml 2008-12-17 17:59:55+0000 1.237 @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ <items> <rdf:Seq> + <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/"; /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-4373353179933806915" /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-388930936089525710" /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://openoffice.exblog.jp/7734021/"; /> @@ -32,11 +33,33 @@ <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://openoffice.exblog.jp/7706051/"; /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://openoffice.exblog.jp/7705533/"; /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://openoffice.exblog.jp/7703043/"; /> - <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-8159324126494009918" /> </rdf:Seq> </items> </channel> +<item rdf:about="http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/";> + <title>Charles Schulz: Some thoughts on the Microsoftâs implementation of ODF</title> + <link>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/</link> + <content:encoded><p>This post is a bit hard to write. Let me just put it this way: If my predictions below are true, it will mean that Microsoft will offer some crippled and low-level support of ODF 1.1 in its next version of Microsoft Office. It will also mean that OpenOffice.org will have gained a competitive edge on the market.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>Now you may wonder why I find it difficult to write down these things. The reason is <a href="http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oic/email/archives/200812/msg00016.html">the recent post of Doug Mahugh</a> in regard of the support of ODF by MS Office. Instead of providing a detailed review on the matter, Doug explains -a bit laboriously- that interoperability does not mean that each implementation has to do things the same way and that some implementations are more extensive than others. We are then being told that Microsoft Office will have limited support in for ODF tables in Word.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>Doug&#8217;s initial point is true: there are differences in implementation of a standard. When you have a truly open standard, you can expect implementers to be able to deliver some reliable implementation of the standard. Of course, it depends of the implementation&#8217;s focus. Suppose for one moment that I&#8217;m in the business of developing and selling IT systems for ATMs. I have an OS that sports an user interface for ATM transactions, another one for administration, and among several other features, an editor that prints out your receipts and the records of your past transactions on demand. One might expect that this editor can support ODF natively and will create ODF documents. These documents are not very complex, and to say it all, they&#8217;re even very basic. All what is required for me is to implement the bare minimum of ODF to be compliant and adequately call myself compliant. The minimum compliance with ODF is my right, as the vendor of the ATM receipts editor. My business is not print complex spreadsheets, nor fancy presentations, no: my business is to allow cash machines to print customers&#8217; receipts of their cash transactions at the ATM, that&#8217;s all.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>Now you have Microsoft&#8217;s bellydancing and basically declaring that they, who sell the âbest office suite on the marketâ (I don&#8217;t make that claim) will offer poor support on ODF because of product limitations. Am I the only one here feeling that Redmond is trying -again-to play games? Any additional information would be welcome at this stage, of course, but the market should pay close attention to this issue.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>I have hailed and declared myself positively satisfied the inclusion of Microsoft in the ODF committees at the OASIS consortium. I have read the contributions of its employees and they were useful and constructive. This being said, Doug&#8217;s blog leaves me with an odd taste in my mouth.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>To be frank, I feel that Doug has been looking for a way to tell us that Microsoft&#8217;s support of ODF will be crappy and that it was intended to be that way. I realize I have no substantial evidence of what I&#8217;m asserting here, but since when does Microsoft speak of the new features of MS Office with a sorry tone?</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>That&#8217;s why I just don&#8217;t know how to properly assess what kind of message Microsoft is sending right now. The way I see it, Microsoft expects customers will stick to Microsoft Office since it also supports an Open Standard, ODF. However, the support of ODF being of poor quality, customers will roll back to Microsoft&#8217;s formats, and life will go on back like it was in the good old days.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>I realize this is all « prospective » thinking, and that there is nothing solid aside Microsoft&#8217;s announcement of poor support of the ODF file format. I am disappointed by these news, though. Once again, Microsoft&#8217;s declarations turn out to be âall hat, no cattleâ. The way out of it is known: Choose OpenOffice.org, choose ODF, choose any other office suite, but not the one that offers partial support of an open standard that puts the users first.</p> +<p><br clear="left" /></p> +<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=109&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_109" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> +</p></content:encoded> + <dc:date>2008-12-17T17:11:34+00:00</dc:date> +</item> <item rdf:about="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-4373353179933806915"> <title>Leif Lodahl: [Update]Tønder Municipality behind Free IT Software for all Schoolchildren</title> <link>http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/12/tnder-municipality-behind-free-it.html</link> @@ -269,12 +292,5 @@ <dc:date>2008-12-01T04:57:08+00:00</dc:date> <dc:creator>khparametric</dc:creator> </item> -<item rdf:about="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-8159324126494009918"> - <title>Leif Lodahl: Newsletter</title> - <link>http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/11/newsletter.html</link> - <content:encoded>The monthly newsletter from the Danish community is out: http://doc.oooforum.dk/Nyhed/2008December.pdf</content:encoded> - <dc:date>2008-11-30T21:31:04+00:00</dc:date> - <dc:creator>Leif Lodahl</dc:creator> -</item> </rdf:RDF> File [changed]: rss20.xml Url: http://native-lang.openoffice.org/source/browse/native-lang/www/planet/rss20.xml?r1=1.237&r2=1.238 Delta lines: +24 -8 -------------------- --- rss20.xml 2008-12-16 23:59:54+0000 1.237 +++ rss20.xml 2008-12-17 17:59:55+0000 1.238 @@ -8,6 +8,30 @@ <description>Native Language Confederation Planet - http://native-lang.openoffice.org/planet/</description> <item> + <title>Charles Schulz: Some thoughts on the Microsoftâs implementation of ODF</title> + <guid>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/</guid> + <link>http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2008/12/17/some-thoughts-on-the-microsofts-implementation-of-odf/</link> + <description><p>This post is a bit hard to write. Let me just put it this way: If my predictions below are true, it will mean that Microsoft will offer some crippled and low-level support of ODF 1.1 in its next version of Microsoft Office. It will also mean that OpenOffice.org will have gained a competitive edge on the market.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>Now you may wonder why I find it difficult to write down these things. The reason is <a href="http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/oic/email/archives/200812/msg00016.html">the recent post of Doug Mahugh</a> in regard of the support of ODF by MS Office. Instead of providing a detailed review on the matter, Doug explains -a bit laboriously- that interoperability does not mean that each implementation has to do things the same way and that some implementations are more extensive than others. We are then being told that Microsoft Office will have limited support in for ODF tables in Word.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>Doug&#8217;s initial point is true: there are differences in implementation of a standard. When you have a truly open standard, you can expect implementers to be able to deliver some reliable implementation of the standard. Of course, it depends of the implementation&#8217;s focus. Suppose for one moment that I&#8217;m in the business of developing and selling IT systems for ATMs. I have an OS that sports an user interface for ATM transactions, another one for administration, and among several other features, an editor that prints out your receipts and the records of your past transactions on demand. One might expect that this editor can support ODF natively and will create ODF documents. These documents are not very complex, and to say it all, they&#8217;re even very basic. All what is required for me is to implement the bare minimum of ODF to be compliant and adequately call myself compliant. The minimum compliance with ODF is my right, as the vendor of the ATM receipts editor. My business is not print complex spreadsheets, nor fancy presentations, no: my business is to allow cash machines to print customers&#8217; receipts of their cash transactions at the ATM, that&#8217;s all.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>Now you have Microsoft&#8217;s bellydancing and basically declaring that they, who sell the âbest office suite on the marketâ (I don&#8217;t make that claim) will offer poor support on ODF because of product limitations. Am I the only one here feeling that Redmond is trying -again-to play games? Any additional information would be welcome at this stage, of course, but the market should pay close attention to this issue.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>I have hailed and declared myself positively satisfied the inclusion of Microsoft in the ODF committees at the OASIS consortium. I have read the contributions of its employees and they were useful and constructive. This being said, Doug&#8217;s blog leaves me with an odd taste in my mouth.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>To be frank, I feel that Doug has been looking for a way to tell us that Microsoft&#8217;s support of ODF will be crappy and that it was intended to be that way. I realize I have no substantial evidence of what I&#8217;m asserting here, but since when does Microsoft speak of the new features of MS Office with a sorry tone?</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>That&#8217;s why I just don&#8217;t know how to properly assess what kind of message Microsoft is sending right now. The way I see it, Microsoft expects customers will stick to Microsoft Office since it also supports an Open Standard, ODF. However, the support of ODF being of poor quality, customers will roll back to Microsoft&#8217;s formats, and life will go on back like it was in the good old days.</p> +<p>&nbsp;</p> +<p>I realize this is all « prospective » thinking, and that there is nothing solid aside Microsoft&#8217;s announcement of poor support of the ODF file format. I am disappointed by these news, though. Once again, Microsoft&#8217;s declarations turn out to be âall hat, no cattleâ. The way out of it is known: Choose OpenOffice.org, choose ODF, choose any other office suite, but not the one that offers partial support of an open standard that puts the users first.</p> +<p><br clear="left" /></p> +<p class="akst_link"><a href="http://standardsandfreedom.net/?p=109&akst_action=share-this" title="E-mail this, post to del.icio.us, etc." id="akst_link_109" class="akst_share_link" rel="nofollow">Share This</a> +</p></description> + <pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:11:34 +0000</pubDate> +</item> +<item> <title>Leif Lodahl: [Update]Tønder Municipality behind Free IT Software for all Schoolchildren</title> <guid>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-4373353179933806915</guid> <link>http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/12/tnder-municipality-behind-free-it.html</link> @@ -249,14 +273,6 @@ <br /></description> <pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:57:08 +0000</pubDate> </item> -<item> - <title>Leif Lodahl: Newsletter</title> - <guid>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5198340507565233169.post-8159324126494009918</guid> - <link>http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/11/newsletter.html</link> - <description>The monthly newsletter from the Danish community is out: http://doc.oooforum.dk/Nyhed/2008December.pdf</description> - <pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:31:04 +0000</pubDate> - <author>[email protected] (Leif Lodahl)</author> -</item> </channel> </rss> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
