In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
[...] > And, if ODF is so all consuming, why would you *want* Microsoft to > support it? If ODF is all that matters about OOo, as soon as MSO > supports it, OOo is dead, right? I mean, if ODF success is the only > key to OOo success - then if MSO has it, there's no need for OOo > anymore. Right? I don't think so. Most people I've suggested consider OOo, rather than MSO, have been concerned about exchanging documents with others. That is, their concern is about getting, or sending, a .doc file, say, that may have formatting differences. Even though OOo is free, that is often their over-riding concern. They don't particularly care that the program itself may be a bit different to use. So, if MSO supported ODF, we could say to such people that *both* OOo and MSO use the same format, so there will be *no* formatting differences when exchanging files (assuming MS implements it correctly). (And ignoring macros, which is not a concern with most of the people I talk to.) So then, I suspect that *more* people would chose OOo, rather than be "in fear" of format differences (even though such may be slight and seldom) and buy MSO anyway, "just to be on the safe side". Bob Long --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
