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...
--
Microsoft: The company that made email dangerous
And web browsing. And viewing pictures. And...
|
|