Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:36:17 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>
>>> In article <po7ij5-1on.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> Sinister Midget <fardblossom@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> > I should clarify, that I was referring to the article, which claims
>>>> > ODF
>>>> > support is being added. I don't know the actual state, which is why
>>>> > I asked the question at the end.
>>>>
>>>> You had to "clarify" because you shot from the hip and realized you
>>>> made an ass of yourself (as usual) again. No need to "clarify" that.
>>>> Everybody already saw it when you accused Roy of "distorting the truth"
>>>> since you couldn't fathom the difference between the tense of two
>>>> verbs, one he used and one you wanted to trash him over despite his not
>>>> using it.
>>>
>>> You are even more confused than you usually are. Read both links.
>>>
>>> Roy's link is to a blog posting dated today, where the author says he is
>>> adding ODF support to KWord, and that the project is about two months
>>> old. That implies that KWord does *NOT* have ODF support, but is in the
>>> processes of getting it. (In which case Roy's headline is wrong, as
>>> usual for him, since it hasn't gotten it yet).
>>>
>>> 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...
>
> So explain
No. Do your own homework
> why the guys blog says he's adding ODF to KWord now, and how
> he's writing the ODF saving function. You seem to have forgot that part.
I forgot nothing.
--
Any idiot can run XP. And usually does.
|
|
