<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Déjà Vu All Over Again</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/51/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/51</link>
	<description>A Carroll Tech blog about Accessibility</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:17:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: redux</title>
		<link>http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/51#comment-76</link>
		<dc:creator>redux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:41:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/51#comment-76</guid>
		<description>sorry, not read the entirety of the article, but may i suggest that there is a third possible scenario: a third party developer makes available at little or no cost a plugin for Word that enables it to import/export ODF files (not as natively supported formats, but converted into MS' internal format on read/write).

and darrell: the argument doesn't make sense..."because the competing software has accessibility issues i support Microsoft's baseless decision not to support the ODF format". a non-sequitur! MS can moan as much as they want about ODF not supporting the rich styling etc of their documents...yet they still quite happily read/write plain text, RTF, and many other such formats. it's pure and simple belief in their leverage (stranglehold) on the market, and the fear that they won't be able to compete with other ODF capable products.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sorry, not read the entirety of the article, but may i suggest that there is a third possible scenario: a third party developer makes available at little or no cost a plugin for Word that enables it to import/export ODF files (not as natively supported formats, but converted into MS&#8217; internal format on read/write).</p>
<p>and darrell: the argument doesn&#8217;t make sense&#8230;&#8221;because the competing software has accessibility issues i support Microsoft&#8217;s baseless decision not to support the ODF format&#8221;. a non-sequitur! MS can moan as much as they want about ODF not supporting the rich styling etc of their documents&#8230;yet they still quite happily read/write plain text, RTF, and many other such formats. it&#8217;s pure and simple belief in their leverage (stranglehold) on the market, and the fear that they won&#8217;t be able to compete with other ODF capable products.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darrell</title>
		<link>http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/51#comment-69</link>
		<dc:creator>Darrell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.carrolltech.org/archives/51#comment-69</guid>
		<description>Due to all the current accessibility issues with the applications (Open Office, Star Office) that use Open Doc, I feel compelled to support Microsoft's position concerning the Mass ITD switch and am quite confident that Microsoft's influence / money along with the access issues will result in the squashing of this switch to Open Doc. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Due to all the current accessibility issues with the applications (Open Office, Star Office) that use Open Doc, I feel compelled to support Microsoft&#8217;s position concerning the Mass ITD switch and am quite confident that Microsoft&#8217;s influence / money along with the access issues will result in the squashing of this switch to Open Doc. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
