User: jpmcc Date: 2009-02-27 06:01:17+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 Fri Feb 27 06:00:35 GMT 2009 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=1.1354&r2=1.1355 Delta lines: +25 -27 --------------------- --- atom.xml 2009-02-27 00:01:12+0000 1.1354 +++ atom.xml 2009-02-27 06:01:15+0000 1.1355 @@ -5,9 +5,29 @@ <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>2009-02-27T00:00:39+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-02-27T06:00:42+00:00</updated> <generator uri="http://www.planetplanet.org/";>Planet/2.0 +http://www.planetplanet.org</generator> + <entry> + <title type="html">Notes, Links, 2009-02-2</title> + <link href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/2009/02/notes-links-2009-02-2.html"/> + <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564.post-1640464200079194301</id> + <updated>2009-02-27T00:58:39+00:00</updated> + <content type="html">The <a href="http://www.cio.gov.uk/transformational_government/open_source/action.asp">action</a> by the UK to promote open source published 24 February is of course terrific news and should be hailed as such. I hope it will, along with similar other European acts, stimulate the North American governments to also promote open source, open standards, and thus directly and indirectly innovation and economic growth here. Certainly, we need it. Note--the policy directive issued by the government is not a dismissal of proprietary software, and it is not a celebration of the freedoms granted by Foss. It is rather a statement about giving taxpayers the best value for their taxes:<br /><br />&#x201c;While we have always respected the long-held beliefs of those who think that governments should favour Open Source on principle, we have always taken the view that the main test should be what is best value for the taxpayer.<br /><br />&#x201c;Over the past five years many government departments have shown that Open Source can be best for the taxpayer &#x2013; in our web services, in the NHS and in other vital public services.&#x201d; <br /><br />Why then the directive now? Because &#x201c;we need to increase the pace,&#x201d; as the innovation, the dialog between government users and the IT industry, needs to be allowed free rein, and not the essentially furtive and sporadic efforts that have preceded this directive--and which characterize government procurement practices elsewhere. <br /><br />Yet there is good news emerging: Canada put out a <a href="http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-$$EE-015-18733&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=Au64x22Vv9pVNE3IKtFp3Q==">Request For Information</a> to which numerous companies replied, including Sun. (I helped draft the response, along with Bruno S.; Simon P. provided the logical frame.) And late last month, I gave a two-hour discussion on Foss and policy to the Ontario government. All of which is to say that in Canada there is movement in the right direction--a movement I fully expect to see grow. Why? proprietary software costs taxpayers money--upfront, down the road, in the end. <br /><br />Of course, we all expect the usual arguments, and I&#x2019;ve already noted harbingers of them: that there are hidden costs to Foss, and that these include such things as migration of documents, files, people; and also training and certification costs, and then the biggest fear of all, the by and large bogus problem of using software that may have license issues. In the case of OpenOffice.org (and probably most other significant software the government is likely to consider) that&#x2019;s a false fear.<br /> <br />But that won&#x2019;t stop some. In Microsoft&#x2019;s <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/microsoft_tomtom/print.html">suit</a> against the in-car navigation device maker TomTom for patent infringement, even though the suit is ostensibly and ostentatiously not against Foss, (&#x201c;Open source software is not the focal point of this action.&#x201d;), the environment Foss is clearly affected. For whatever the merits of this suit (and TomTom is hardly quiescent here) this is very close to the sort of fear frightens governments and corporations away from Foss: That there is a tiger lurking in the open source commons.<br /><br />It shouldn&#x2019;t. But it should provoke us to ensure that our code is clean and that any code that we expect others to build on and distribute must be have an unimpeachable pedigree. And that goes for proprietary software, too. Or does anyone really think that the m&#x00e9;lange of doubt can only apply to works licensed under Foss copyrights? So let&#x2019;s speculate that the end result of this sabre rattling is ultimately to endorse a copyright regime that is characterized not by FUD but by transparency, of license and code, and backed not by market-driven entities but by responsible community organizations and companies--those that understand where innovation lies and how to promote it, so as to foster a sustainable present and future. We certainly need it.<br /><br /><br /></content> + <author> + <name>oulipo</name> + <email>[email protected]</email> + <uri>http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/</uri> + </author> + <source> + <title type="html">ooo-speak</title> + <subtitle type="html">Mostly on OpenOffice.org, FOSS, and everything else.</subtitle> + <link rel="self" href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> + <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564</id> + <updated>2009-02-27T06:00:38+00:00</updated> + </source> + </entry> + <entry xml:lang="fr"> <title type="html">Proposal for ODF Next</title> <link href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/26/105-proposal-for-odf-next"/> @@ -47,7 +67,7 @@ <title type="html">andreasma_at_ooo</title> <link rel="self" href="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/rss"/> <id>http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/rss</id> - <updated>2009-02-27T00:00:37+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-02-27T06:00:39+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -67,7 +87,7 @@ <subtitle type="html">Mostly on OpenOffice.org, FOSS, and everything else.</subtitle> <link rel="self" href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default"/> <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564</id> - <updated>2009-02-26T00:00:53+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-02-27T06:00:38+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -197,7 +217,7 @@ <title type="html">andreasma_at_ooo</title> <link rel="self" href="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/rss"/> <id>http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/rss</id> - <updated>2009-02-27T00:00:37+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-02-27T06:00:39+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -236,7 +256,7 @@ <title type="html">andreasma_at_ooo</title> <link rel="self" href="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/rss"/> <id>http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/rss</id> - <updated>2009-02-27T00:00:37+00:00</updated> + <updated>2009-02-27T06:00:39+00:00</updated> </source> </entry> @@ -325,26 +345,4 @@ </source> </entry> - <entry xml:lang="fr"> - <title type="html">Developers' Manifesto</title> - <link href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/index.php/2009/01/28/101-developers-manifesto"/> - <id>tag:sophiegautier.com,2009-01-28:/blog/101</id> - <updated>2009-01-28T15:56:43+00:00</updated> - <content type="html"><p>Cela faisait un petit bout de temps que nous étions dessus, il est maintenant paru :)</p> - - -<p><a href="http://council.openoffice.org/developers.html" hreflang="en">http://council.openoffice.org/developers.html</a></p></content> - <author> - <name>sophi</name> - <uri>http://sophiegautier.com/blog/index.php/</uri> - </author> - <source> - <title type="html">Sgauti at OOo</title> - <subtitle type="html">Histoires OpenOfficiennes et autres...</subtitle> - <link rel="self" href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/atom.php"/> - <id>tag:sophiegautier.com,2009:/blog/index.php/</id> - <updated>2009-02-27T00:00:37+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=1.1354&r2=1.1355 Delta lines: +16 -19 --------------------- --- index.html 2009-02-27 00:01:12+0000 1.1354 +++ index.html 2009-02-27 06:01:15+0000 1.1355 @@ -29,8 +29,23 @@ <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: February 27, 2009 12:00 AM GMT</em></p> +<p><em>Bloggings on native language topics by project members - see <a href="#disclaimer">disclaimer</a>.<br />Last updated: February 27, 2009 06:00 AM GMT</em></p> +<h2>February 27, 2009</h2> +<h3> +<a href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/"; title="ooo-speak"> +Louis Suarez-Potts</a> : +<a href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/2009/02/notes-links-2009-02-2.html";> +Notes, Links, 2009-02-2</a> +</h3> +<p> +The <a href="http://www.cio.gov.uk/transformational_government/open_source/action.asp";>action</a> by the UK to promote open source published 24 February is of course terrific news and should be hailed as such. I hope it will, along with similar other European acts, stimulate the North American governments to also promote open source, open standards, and thus directly and indirectly innovation and economic growth here. Certainly, we need it. Note--the policy directive issued by the government is not a dismissal of proprietary software, and it is not a celebration of the freedoms granted by Foss. It is rather a statement about giving taxpayers the best value for their taxes:<br /><br />“While we have always respected the long-held beliefs of those who think that governments should favour Open Source on principle, we have always taken the view that the main test should be what is best value for the taxpayer.<br /><br />“Over the past five years many government departments have shown that Open Source can be best for the taxpayer – in our web services, in the NHS and in other vital public services.” <br /><br />Why then the directive now? Because “we need to increase the pace,” as the innovation, the dialog between government users and the IT industry, needs to be allowed free rein, and not the essentially furtive and sporadic efforts that have preceded this directive--and which characterize government procurement practices elsewhere. <br /><br />Yet there is good news emerging: Canada put out a <a href="http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-$$EE-015-18733&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=Au64x22Vv9pVNE3IKtFp3Q==";>Request For Information</a> to which numerous companies replied, including Sun. (I helped draft the response, along with Bruno S.; Simon P. provided the logical frame.) And late last month, I gave a two-hour discussion on Foss and policy to the Ontario government. All of which is to say that in Canada there is movement in the right direction--a movement I fully expect to see grow. Why? proprietary software costs taxpayers money--upfront, down the road, in the end. <br /><br />Of course, we all expect the usual arguments, and I’ve already noted harbingers of them: that there are hidden costs to Foss, and that these include such things as migration of documents, files, people; and also training and certification costs, and then the biggest fear of all, the by and large bogus problem of using software that may have license issues. In the case of OpenOffice.org (and probably most other significant software the government is likely to consider) that’s a false fear.<br /> <br />But that won’t stop some. In Microsoft’s <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/microsoft_tomtom/print.html";>suit</a> against the in-car navigation device maker TomTom for patent infringement, even though the suit is ostensibly and ostentatiously not against Foss, (“Open source software is not the focal point of this action.”), the environment Foss is clearly affected. For whatever the merits of this suit (and TomTom is hardly quiescent here) this is very close to the sort of fear frightens governments and corporations away from Foss: That there is a tiger lurking in the open source commons.<br /><br />It shouldn’t. But it should provoke us to ensure that our code is clean and that any code that we expect others to build on and distribute must be have an unimpeachable pedigree. And that goes for proprietary software, too. Or does anyone really think that the mélange of doubt can only apply to works licensed under Foss copyrights? So let’s speculate that the end result of this sabre rattling is ultimately to endorse a copyright regime that is characterized not by FUD but by transparency, of license and code, and backed not by market-driven entities but by responsible community organizations and companies--those that understand where innovation lies and how to promote it, so as to foster a sustainable present and future. We certainly need it.<br /><br /><br /></p> +<p> +<em><a href="http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/2009/02/notes-links-2009-02-2.html";>by oulipo ([email protected]) at February 27, 2009 12:58 AM GMT</a></em> +</p> +<br /> +<hr /> +<br /> <h2>February 26, 2009</h2> <h3> <a href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/index.php/"; title="Sgauti at OOo"> @@ -297,24 +312,6 @@ <br /> <hr /> <br /> -<h2>January 28, 2009</h2> -<h3> -<a href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/index.php/"; title="Sgauti at OOo"> -Sophie Gautier</a> : -<a href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/index.php/2009/01/28/101-developers-manifesto";> -Developers' Manifesto</a> -</h3> -<p> -<p>Cela faisait un petit bout de temps que nous étions dessus, il est maintenant paru :)</p> - - -<p><a href="http://council.openoffice.org/developers.html"; hreflang="en">http://council.openoffice.org/developers.html</a></p></p> -<p> -<em><a href="http://sophiegautier.com/blog/index.php/2009/01/28/101-developers-manifesto";>by sophi at January 28, 2009 03:56 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=1.1354&r2=1.1355 Delta lines: +1 -1 ------------------- --- opml.xml 2009-02-27 00:01:12+0000 1.1354 +++ opml.xml 2009-02-27 06:01:15+0000 1.1355 @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ <opml version="1.1"> <head> <title>Native Language Confederation Planet</title> - <dateModified>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:39 +0000</dateModified> + <dateModified>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:00:42 +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=1.270&r2=1.271 Delta lines: +8 -11 -------------------- --- rss10.xml 2009-02-27 00:01:12+0000 1.270 +++ rss10.xml 2009-02-27 06:01:15+0000 1.271 @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ <items> <rdf:Seq> + <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564.post-1640464200079194301" /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:sophiegautier.com,2009-02-26:/blog/105" /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://andreasmaooo.blogger.de/stories/1347187/"; /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564.post-2103093424349323111" /> @@ -25,11 +26,17 @@ <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:sophiegautier.com,2009-02-09:/blog/104" /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:sophiegautier.com,2009-02-05:/blog/103" /> <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:sophiegautier.com,2009-02-01:/blog/102" /> - <rdf:li rdf:resource="tag:sophiegautier.com,2009-01-28:/blog/101" /> </rdf:Seq> </items> </channel> +<item rdf:about="tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564.post-1640464200079194301"> + <title>Louis Suarez-Potts: Notes, Links, 2009-02-2</title> + <link>http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/2009/02/notes-links-2009-02-2.html</link> + <content:encoded>The <a href="http://www.cio.gov.uk/transformational_government/open_source/action.asp">action</a> by the UK to promote open source published 24 February is of course terrific news and should be hailed as such. I hope it will, along with similar other European acts, stimulate the North American governments to also promote open source, open standards, and thus directly and indirectly innovation and economic growth here. Certainly, we need it. Note--the policy directive issued by the government is not a dismissal of proprietary software, and it is not a celebration of the freedoms granted by Foss. It is rather a statement about giving taxpayers the best value for their taxes:<br /><br />&#x201c;While we have always respected the long-held beliefs of those who think that governments should favour Open Source on principle, we have always taken the view that the main test should be what is best value for the taxpayer.<br /><br />&#x201c;Over the past five years many government departments have shown that Open Source can be best for the taxpayer &#x2013; in our web services, in the NHS and in other vital public services.&#x201d; <br /><br />Why then the directive now? Because &#x201c;we need to increase the pace,&#x201d; as the innovation, the dialog between government users and the IT industry, needs to be allowed free rein, and not the essentially furtive and sporadic efforts that have preceded this directive--and which characterize government procurement practices elsewhere. <br /><br />Yet there is good news emerging: Canada put out a <a href="http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-$$EE-015-18733&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=Au64x22Vv9pVNE3IKtFp3Q==">Request For Information</a> to which numerous companies replied, including Sun. (I helped draft the response, along with Bruno S.; Simon P. provided the logical frame.) And late last month, I gave a two-hour discussion on Foss and policy to the Ontario government. All of which is to say that in Canada there is movement in the right direction--a movement I fully expect to see grow. Why? proprietary software costs taxpayers money--upfront, down the road, in the end. <br /><br />Of course, we all expect the usual arguments, and I&#x2019;ve already noted harbingers of them: that there are hidden costs to Foss, and that these include such things as migration of documents, files, people; and also training and certification costs, and then the biggest fear of all, the by and large bogus problem of using software that may have license issues. In the case of OpenOffice.org (and probably most other significant software the government is likely to consider) that&#x2019;s a false fear.<br /> <br />But that won&#x2019;t stop some. In Microsoft&#x2019;s <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/microsoft_tomtom/print.html">suit</a> against the in-car navigation device maker TomTom for patent infringement, even though the suit is ostensibly and ostentatiously not against Foss, (&#x201c;Open source software is not the focal point of this action.&#x201d;), the environment Foss is clearly affected. For whatever the merits of this suit (and TomTom is hardly quiescent here) this is very close to the sort of fear frightens governments and corporations away from Foss: That there is a tiger lurking in the open source commons.<br /><br />It shouldn&#x2019;t. But it should provoke us to ensure that our code is clean and that any code that we expect others to build on and distribute must be have an unimpeachable pedigree. And that goes for proprietary software, too. Or does anyone really think that the m&#x00e9;lange of doubt can only apply to works licensed under Foss copyrights? So let&#x2019;s speculate that the end result of this sabre rattling is ultimately to endorse a copyright regime that is characterized not by FUD but by transparency, of license and code, and backed not by market-driven entities but by responsible community organizations and companies--those that understand where innovation lies and how to promote it, so as to foster a sustainable present and future. We certainly need it.<br /><br /><br /></content:encoded> + <dc:date>2009-02-27T00:58:39+00:00</dc:date> + <dc:creator>oulipo</dc:creator> +</item> <item rdf:about="tag:sophiegautier.com,2009-02-26:/blog/105"> <title>Sophie Gautier: Proposal for ODF Next</title> <link>http://sophiegautier.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/26/105-proposal-for-odf-next</link> @@ -200,15 +207,5 @@ <dc:date>2009-02-01T18:24:33+00:00</dc:date> <dc:creator>sophi</dc:creator> </item> -<item rdf:about="tag:sophiegautier.com,2009-01-28:/blog/101"> - <title>Sophie Gautier: Developers' Manifesto</title> - <link>http://sophiegautier.com/blog/index.php/2009/01/28/101-developers-manifesto</link> - <content:encoded><p>Cela faisait un petit bout de temps que nous étions dessus, il est maintenant paru :)</p> - - -<p><a href="http://council.openoffice.org/developers.html" hreflang="en">http://council.openoffice.org/developers.html</a></p></content:encoded> - <dc:date>2009-01-28T15:56:43+00:00</dc:date> - <dc:creator>sophi</dc:creator> -</item> </rdf:RDF> File [changed]: rss20.xml Url: http://native-lang.openoffice.org/source/browse/native-lang/www/planet/rss20.xml?r1=1.271&r2=1.272 Delta lines: +8 -10 -------------------- --- rss20.xml 2009-02-27 00:01:12+0000 1.271 +++ rss20.xml 2009-02-27 06:01:15+0000 1.272 @@ -8,6 +8,14 @@ <description>Native Language Confederation Planet - http://native-lang.openoffice.org/planet/</description> <item> + <title>Louis Suarez-Potts: Notes, Links, 2009-02-2</title> + <guid>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649039904546083564.post-1640464200079194301</guid> + <link>http://ooo-speak.blogspot.com/2009/02/notes-links-2009-02-2.html</link> + <description>The <a href="http://www.cio.gov.uk/transformational_government/open_source/action.asp">action</a> by the UK to promote open source published 24 February is of course terrific news and should be hailed as such. I hope it will, along with similar other European acts, stimulate the North American governments to also promote open source, open standards, and thus directly and indirectly innovation and economic growth here. Certainly, we need it. Note--the policy directive issued by the government is not a dismissal of proprietary software, and it is not a celebration of the freedoms granted by Foss. It is rather a statement about giving taxpayers the best value for their taxes:<br /><br />&#x201c;While we have always respected the long-held beliefs of those who think that governments should favour Open Source on principle, we have always taken the view that the main test should be what is best value for the taxpayer.<br /><br />&#x201c;Over the past five years many government departments have shown that Open Source can be best for the taxpayer &#x2013; in our web services, in the NHS and in other vital public services.&#x201d; <br /><br />Why then the directive now? Because &#x201c;we need to increase the pace,&#x201d; as the innovation, the dialog between government users and the IT industry, needs to be allowed free rein, and not the essentially furtive and sporadic efforts that have preceded this directive--and which characterize government procurement practices elsewhere. <br /><br />Yet there is good news emerging: Canada put out a <a href="http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=PW-$$EE-015-18733&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=Au64x22Vv9pVNE3IKtFp3Q==">Request For Information</a> to which numerous companies replied, including Sun. (I helped draft the response, along with Bruno S.; Simon P. provided the logical frame.) And late last month, I gave a two-hour discussion on Foss and policy to the Ontario government. All of which is to say that in Canada there is movement in the right direction--a movement I fully expect to see grow. Why? proprietary software costs taxpayers money--upfront, down the road, in the end. <br /><br />Of course, we all expect the usual arguments, and I&#x2019;ve already noted harbingers of them: that there are hidden costs to Foss, and that these include such things as migration of documents, files, people; and also training and certification costs, and then the biggest fear of all, the by and large bogus problem of using software that may have license issues. In the case of OpenOffice.org (and probably most other significant software the government is likely to consider) that&#x2019;s a false fear.<br /> <br />But that won&#x2019;t stop some. In Microsoft&#x2019;s <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/26/microsoft_tomtom/print.html">suit</a> against the in-car navigation device maker TomTom for patent infringement, even though the suit is ostensibly and ostentatiously not against Foss, (&#x201c;Open source software is not the focal point of this action.&#x201d;), the environment Foss is clearly affected. For whatever the merits of this suit (and TomTom is hardly quiescent here) this is very close to the sort of fear frightens governments and corporations away from Foss: That there is a tiger lurking in the open source commons.<br /><br />It shouldn&#x2019;t. But it should provoke us to ensure that our code is clean and that any code that we expect others to build on and distribute must be have an unimpeachable pedigree. And that goes for proprietary software, too. Or does anyone really think that the m&#x00e9;lange of doubt can only apply to works licensed under Foss copyrights? So let&#x2019;s speculate that the end result of this sabre rattling is ultimately to endorse a copyright regime that is characterized not by FUD but by transparency, of license and code, and backed not by market-driven entities but by responsible community organizations and companies--those that understand where innovation lies and how to promote it, so as to foster a sustainable present and future. We certainly need it.<br /><br /><br /></description> + <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:58:39 +0000</pubDate> + <author>[email protected] (oulipo)</author> +</item> +<item> <title>Sophie Gautier: Proposal for ODF Next</title> <guid>tag:sophiegautier.com,2009-02-26:/blog/105</guid> <link>http://sophiegautier.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/26/105-proposal-for-odf-next</link> @@ -182,16 +190,6 @@ <p>A très bientôt donc&nbsp;!</p></description> <pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:24:33 +0000</pubDate> </item> -<item> - <title>Sophie Gautier: Developers' Manifesto</title> - <guid>tag:sophiegautier.com,2009-01-28:/blog/101</guid> - <link>http://sophiegautier.com/blog/index.php/2009/01/28/101-developers-manifesto</link> - <description><p>Cela faisait un petit bout de temps que nous étions dessus, il est maintenant paru :)</p> - - -<p><a href="http://council.openoffice.org/developers.html" hreflang="en">http://council.openoffice.org/developers.html</a></p></description> - <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:56:43 +0000</pubDate> -</item> </channel> </rss> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
