<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Kommentaarid Jon Bosak: valik failiformaatide vahel sõltuvalt tehnilistest vajadustest kohta</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.artsturm.ee/odf/2008/10/16/jon-bosak-valik-failiformaatide-vahel-soltuvalt-tehnilistest-vajadustest/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.artsturm.ee/odf/2008/10/16/jon-bosak-valik-failiformaatide-vahel-soltuvalt-tehnilistest-vajadustest/</link>
	<description>ODF PDF HTML XML TXT TEX UOF EPUB</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:05:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Kirjutas Rick Jelliffe</title>
		<link>http://www.artsturm.ee/odf/2008/10/16/jon-bosak-valik-failiformaatide-vahel-soltuvalt-tehnilistest-vajadustest/comment-page-1/#comment-1042</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Jelliffe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:57:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artsturm.ee/odf/2008/10/16/jon-bosak-valik-failiformaatide-vahel-soltuvalt-tehnilistest-vajadustest/#comment-1042</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Is ODF the new RTF or the new .DOC? Can it be both? Do we need either?&lt;/strong&gt;

Jon Bosak, who founded the XML and ODF efforts among many other achievements, recently wrote an article concerning the position of ODF, Open XML and PDF Jon&#039;s public writings are rare, well-considered and always of interest. As with other Sun-affiliated people in recent times, Jon has been exemplary in that even though he has a side, he does not take sides. I think I can agree with much of what he says, though I would note Don&#039;t forget about HTML. 

Jon&#039;s awareness of the different capabilities of different formats, and the centrality of having a clear understanding of these, stimulated me to try to articulate something I have been thinking about for while: is ODF better considered a replacement for .DOC or .RTF, and can it be a substitute for both? And are there any bigger issues than this looming, that we should take stock of? 

First, a potted history of the document format landscape over last 25 years.....


&lt;blockquote&gt;http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2008/10/the-document-file-format-lands.html&lt;/blockquote&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Is ODF the new RTF or the new .DOC? Can it be both? Do we need either?</strong></p>
<p>Jon Bosak, who founded the XML and ODF efforts among many other achievements, recently wrote an article concerning the position of ODF, Open XML and PDF Jon&#8217;s public writings are rare, well-considered and always of interest. As with other Sun-affiliated people in recent times, Jon has been exemplary in that even though he has a side, he does not take sides. I think I can agree with much of what he says, though I would note Don&#8217;t forget about HTML. </p>
<p>Jon&#8217;s awareness of the different capabilities of different formats, and the centrality of having a clear understanding of these, stimulated me to try to articulate something I have been thinking about for while: is ODF better considered a replacement for .DOC or .RTF, and can it be a substitute for both? And are there any bigger issues than this looming, that we should take stock of? </p>
<p>First, a potted history of the document format landscape over last 25 years&#8230;..</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2008/10/the-document-file-format-lands.html" rel="nofollow">http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2008/10/the-document-file-format-lands.html</a></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

