Hi André,
thanks for pointing this out. Unfortunately, due to the work with the
OOo Congress in Wiesbaden, I'm rather short on time, this is why I
didn't coment much on the issues with 3.2 - but I'm glad that Volker,
Mechtilde, you and others pointed out this problems so often.
It seems that there are indeed problems going on. Although I'm not
involved in QA nor in localization, from what I hear, there is a dire
need of discussing and actually fixing things, and improving communications.
Maybe Orvieto is a place where we can discuss about it, although I
understand that some have already given things up...
Florian
Hi,
most of you might be aware of the discussion about ODF-icons which is
very controversal at the moment.
I don't want to go into this discussion again, but this issue showed,
how important the "ODF-Story" is and that many people around take
this serious.
While doing translations for OOo 3.2 I just came across, that we
introduced a "ODF 1.2 *extended*" file format in OOo. From a technical
point of view I have some ideas, why this is usefull and needed.
But from a users POV, this is rather puzzling. At the one hand we
try to promote ODF as standard - we even go that far to introduce
venodr independet icons for ODF files (as we want to show, that ODF
is ODF, no matter what application you use). At the other hand, we now
have three flavours of ODF in OOo and none of these is the ISO standard
(what is ODF 1.0).
What standard ist this, where you need to change version recommendations
even if you upgrade from one minor application version to the next?
I think, we should be more carefull with this.
André
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
