Ferdinand Soethe wrote: > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > > AFAIR there are some fundamental changes in comparison to openOffice > > 1.x. > > Have you checked this before you started this new plug-in or is this a > gut feeling? I'm asking because I remember looking at both formats > and thinking that they probably just needed a few fixes here and > there ... But I must admit that's as far as I took it. > > Perhaps Ross has done some more work on this? > > > Further like you pointed out the OASIS Open Document Format is a > > higher level standard and *not* directly related to OOo (it just happens > > that they use it as default format).
Heads up. An alarm bell was triggered by the word "OASIS". Please ensure that ASF ideals are met. There were various threads on legal-discuss@ list last year about the concern of RAND terms. Search: OASIS RAND site:apache.org Search: OASIS RAND Now i don't even know if we are affected and am not clear on the general ASF stance. After doing the research, we could contact the legal-discuss@ if help is needed. -David > Let me make it clear that I'm all in favor of naming a > potential unified plug-in after the open standard (as you did). > > My point is that we should not have two different plug-ins for > openOffice and odt since (if) they are so similar. > > > Like I already stated (a standard is way different then an application): > > OpenDocument (odt) != openOffice > > No doubt about that. Sorry for being imprecise here. > > > If you have this itch feel free to scratch it. > > I don't think this how it should work. I was commenting on my > impression that we are _perhaps_ re-inventing wheels by > developing and debugging a new plug-in for a very similar format. > > And I remembered all the work that Ross and others have already > invested in improving the old plug-in. > > Doesn't seem to make sense to repeat all that, does it? > > -- > Ferdinand Soethe
