On 10/02/09 11:55, Andre Schnabel wrote:
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).
That new entry is part of proper ODF handling. "Conforming OpenDocument
extended documents" are specified in the ODF 1.2 drafts, and are the
"clean" way of handling new features, instead of treating them as if
they were already specified.
What standard ist this, where you need to change version recommendations
even if you upgrade from one minor application version to the next?
3.1 didn't have any features beyond ODF 1.2, so the entry would have
been somewhat pointless. See issue 95188. The configuration value
remains the same, so you don't have to change anything if you upgrade.
Niklas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
