krackedpress wrote
> So with these specs, what is the newest version of LO you would
> install? With this low RAM, it may not be able to handle the newest
> versions. As I type this, the old system is now in the "software
> updating" cycle. So, it is installing the newest LO that is in Ubuntu
Hi.
I found this very useful thanks.
steve.
On 11/08/14 8:51 pm, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Hello everyone,
Quick note in passing. I fail to see how thr discussion on xml standards
implementations is of any interest to our users. May I (respectfully) suggest
that interested parties bring this c
Charles-H. Schulz wrote
> Quick note in passing. I fail to see how thr discussion on xml standards
> implementations is of any interest to our users. May I (respectfully)
> suggest that interested parties bring this conversation to our discuss
> list?
Duly noted. I posted my last response before s
italovignoli wrote
> On 10/08/14 03:01, Owen Genat wrote:
>
>> The Transitional and Strict formats are both defined in ISO/IEC 29500.
>
> In ISO/IEC 29500 there is only one transitional definition, while
> Microsoft has produced three different transitional versions (two
> without definition, i.e
Hello everyone,
Quick note in passing. I fail to see how thr discussion on xml standards
implementations is of any interest to our users. May I (respectfully) suggest
that interested parties bring this conversation to our discuss list?
Thank you,
Charles.
On 11 août 2014 10:40:00 CEST, Owen G
TomD wrote
> The OOXML standard has been through 3 revisions [...] Apparently first put
> through in 2012. [...] ODF (Open Document Format) [...] has been an ISO
> since 2006. Apparently it was complete enough first time and has never
> needed to be revised.
This is inaccurate and not a good refle
On 10/08/14 03:01, Owen Genat wrote:
> Please refer my clarification to Italo's information up-thread. The
> Transitional and Strict formats are both defined in ISO/IEC 29500.
In ISO/IEC 29500 there is only one transitional definition, while
Microsoft has produced three different transitional ver
Hi :)
I didn't mean that Italo was wrong, just that it was possibly a bit geeky
(and that wasn't a disadvantage because he put it so well).
Where MS might be updating their doc, xls etc formats at least they have
hopefully stopped doing different versions for different versions of their
program.
Owen Genat wrote
> The old MS Binary specifications last had an update of significance
> (change in technical nature) on 2014-04-30 (XLS) and 2012-01-20 (DOC and
> PPT).
Oops. I am already out of date. The DOC and XLSB specifications had a major
update 2014-07-31.
-
Best wishes, Owen.
--
Vi
TomD wrote
> The Doc, Xls, Ppt files all used to have this problem too but now that MS
> have stopped developing it so much and moved to developing their newer
> formats it's finally these older formats that ARE good for sharing between
> different programs.
The old MS Binary specifications last h
TomD wrote
> I'm fairly sure the default format in MS Office 2013 is not "strict" but
> is
> just another "transitional" format. Afaik none of the transitional
> formats
> are registered ISO formats. I don't think it's particularly easy to get
> 2013 to use "strict" by default but it is possible
italovignoli wrote
> OOXML Strict is supported only by MS Office 2013, while all other MS
> Office incarnations will not open it (and will tell the user that the
> file is corrupted).
This statement is not accurate. ISO/IEC 29500 Strict can be opened / edited
by MSO 2010 and opened / edited / save
12 matches
Mail list logo
