@Kohei,
Kohei Yoshida-7 wrote > It seems to me that you probably know more about UOF than the rest of > us. I'd like to hear your opinion of what should be done. And if your > answer is "we should take this further to support Chinese users", then > who do you think should provide the development resources, given TDF > itself has no development resources? > > I have my own biased (and uninformed) opinion on this topic, but that's > probably not relevant here. No, completely new to me since I began poking at fdo#50430. And I guess that is part of the issue, I've had to dig pretty deep to find out where we went of track. There was some preliminary work done back in the OOo heyday when UOF was just being finalized--but then nada. The OOo team missed an opportunity in 2010 to bring things with UOF more current--and balked as it was too close to a release cycle. Then nothing-- and while developers in China and state sponsors have continued their efforts on UOF--support for the XML format in OOo and now LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice has been passed over. Not sure if the repo network tracks it, but might be interesting to identify just how many seats of LibreOffice have been downloaded to Chinese configured web browsers. Can we somehow determine how relative LibreOffice and ODF is to Chinese language users, or to office users in the PRC? That metric might dictate what path to take in support of UOF interoperability in LibreOffice, is it functionality that our Chinese reading users would make use of? Stuart -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/UOF-v2-0-the-PRC-national-XML-standard-for-Chinese-Office-documents-what-to-do-with-it-in-LibreOffic-tp4128745p4128788.html Sent from the Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
