[odf-discuss] Should we mention "Microsoft Office + Sun plug-in" as an "ODF supporting" application ?

[Peter Vandenabeele]

On 9/12/07, Chris Puttick <cputtick at gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we should separate out the different versions?
> And then add a footnote to each entry marked as more
> than one or no star [1] with Sun plugin <link>?

For my understanding ... Could that mean e.g. :

In the category "Office Suites",
replace "Microsoft Office" by:

MS Office 2000 + Sun plug-in    ****    [Works well even on complex documents.]
MS Office XP + Sun plug-in       ****
MS Office 2003 + Sun plug-in    ****
MS Office XP + odf-converter plug-in       *   [Work has started]
MS Office 2003 + odf-converter plug-in    *
MS Office 2007 + odf-converter plug-in    *

In the category "Word Processors (other than suites)"
add:

MS Word XP + odf-converter plug-in       **   [Has important limitations.]
MS Word 2003 + odf-converter plug-in    **
MS Word 2007 + odf-converter plug-in    **

When odf-convertor for Word 1.1 comes through, it may raise 1 or 2 stars for the
Word odf-converter plug-in, depending on the quality.

When odf-converter for PowerPoint and Excell 1.0 comes through, it may raise the
number of starts for MS Office depending on the quality level.

As mentioned before, other important entries are missing on that page
(e.g. "Workplace" probably needs to get an extra star; Sun plug-in needs
to be added to the "converter" category, "Alfresco" needs to be added to
the CMS list, )

Peter