Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <4866aed1$0$27448$9b4e6d93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Peter Kohlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > However, Erik also provided a link, which claims KWord has had ODF
>> > support since 1.4. Yet 1.4 is much much older than two months old.
>> >
>> > So what's the story? Does KWord have ODF support or not? If it has
>> > had it for years, as the Open Document Wikipedia entry implies, why is
>> > the
>> > guy Roy linked to adding it? If it is just being added, why does the
>> > Wikipedia article claim its been there for years?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Version 1.5 of KWord has *full* ODF support.
>> Google would be your friend. Too bad that it is so difficult to use...
>
> Hit your head a few times on the boom while on vacation, by any chance?
I will be on vacation in about 10 days, probably
> Since I talk about the contents of Erik's link, you can infer that I
> read it, and since it talks about full support being in 1.5, why would I
> need to Google?
>
> The question here is why do some other sources imply that it just
> recently has got or is getting support?
>
Well, ask those sources why they got it wrong, then
--
Microsoft? Is that some kind of a toilet paper?
|
|
