Rich wrote: > [OpenDocument in Massachussets] is really great, but i have seen > lately some complaints about od. most of them raise false arguments, > but there are some that i haven't seen a response so... i hope you could > clarify this issue somewhat: [...] > http://blogs.gnome.org/view/mortenw/2005/06/16/0 > > of course, he probably should have raised these points during > creation of od specification, but still - is there a problem ? > if so, what could be the solution ?
Rich, - those points _were_ raised - the OD Technical committee was aware of them and - made it clear why they chose to ignore them (whether one agrees is an entirely different thing, of course) to read a summary and see examples of the problem, please read: http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/09/09/192250 which also points to an already existing (though still alpha) solution. The main problem (as it often happens with FOSS) is to make developers understand that data transparency/portability (without filters) is more important than how beautiful their code or UI are... Ciao, Marco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
