From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_013E_01C680A1.A015A1A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   If it is not optimized for its native format, what is it optimized =
for?

   Can you explain how there is any difference in ease to optimize for a =
specification with or without a stamp of approval from anyone else?  Are =
the open office folks suddenly able to do a better job with their =
implementation of their own specification now?

Rich

  "Don Hills"  wrote in message =
news:bkqdEtgaXOZW092yn{at}attglobal.net...
  In article , "Rich"  wrote:
  >   If you mean the fear of the odf alliance, you sure can.   Did you
  >notice the very interesting comment from their managing director "He
  >added that OpenOffice.org was not initially optimised for ODF, but =
will
  >be in the future."  Isn't odf the native format of openoffice?  If =
it's
  >not optimized for its native format, what is it optimized for?

  Was that FUD, or were you trying to make a joke?
  Regardless, the answer to your question is: Nothing, at the moment.
  It will be optimised for ODF in the future. It makes perfect sense =
once
  you go and find out what the real story is - much easier to do with =
open
  standards than proprietary standards.

  --=20
  Don Hills
------=_NextPart_000_013E_01C680A1.A015A1A0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   If it is
not optimized for =
its native=20
format, what is it optimized for?
 
   Can you
explain how there =
is any=20
difference in ease to optimize for a specification with or without a = stamp of=20
approval from anyone else?  Are the open office folks suddenly able = to=20
do a better job with their implementation of their own = specification=20
now?
 
Rich
 

  "Don Hills" <black.hole.4.spam{at}gmail.commailto:black.hole.4.spam{at}gmail.com">black.hole.4.spam{at}gmail.com
A>>=20
  wrote in message news:bkqdEtgaXOZW092yn{at}attg=
lobal.net...In=20
  article <44766899$1{at}w3.nls.net>,">mailto:44766899$1{at}w3.nls.net">44766899$1{at}w3.nls.net>,
=
"Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote:>   If you
mean the fear of the odf =
alliance,=20
  you sure can.   Did you>notice the
very interesting =
comment=20
  from their managing director "He>added that
OpenOffice.org was =
not=20
  initially optimised for ODF, but will>be in the
future."  =
Isn't=20
  odf the native format of openoffice?  If it's>not =
optimized for=20
  its native format, what is it optimized for?Was that FUD, or =
were you=20
  trying to make a joke?Regardless, the answer to your question is: =
Nothing,=20
  at the moment.It will be optimised for ODF in the future. It makes =
perfect=20
  sense onceyou go and find out what the real story is - much easier =
to do=20
  with openstandards than proprietary
standards.-- Don=20
  Hills  

------=_NextPart_000_013E_01C680A1.A015A1A0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5