Re: [tdf-discuss] Version Numbers?

[shundr...@gmail.com]

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:12 AM, James Wilde wilde.ja...@gmail.com wrote:

 Well, I appreciate that it would mean two sets of numbers for extensions,
 but I can imagine that, in a not too distant future, OOo and LibO are going
 to grow apart, possibly sufficiently that an extension for the one will not
 work with the other.  Why not accept that from day 1?


That's a very good point. +1

-Thiago

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [tdf-discuss] LibO document format: strict ODF or extended ODF?

[shundr...@gmail.com]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Gianluca Turconi
m...@letturefantastiche.com wrote:
 Technically speaking, it may be true, because users always ask for new
 features, but when we're talking about open formats and document exchange,
 it's quite different.

More often than not, the users are interested about features in the
interface rather than features in the document format. I think it's a
bit rarer that feature requests will require the document format to be
extended.

Either way, if there's a need to extend ODF for any reasons, maybe
it's a good idea to keep a very visible page giving tips on
compatibility with LibO's extended ODF, with code snippets that show
how to parse only those extensions?

-Thiago

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***