<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_20_1539212</id>
	<title>Sneak Preview of New OpenOffice 3.2</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1256053320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>omlx writes <i>'The last developer milestone (DEV300m60) of OpenOffice.org has been released. The next version of <a href="http://linuxcrunch.com/content/sneak-preview-new-openoffice-32-part-1">OpenOffice.org 3.2 has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements</a> . The final version is expected to be available at the end of November 2009. Many companies have contributed to this version, like RedHat, RedFlag and IBM, making OpenOffice more stable and useful. I couldn't stop myself from seeing new features and enjoying them. So I downloaded the DEV300m60 version. After playing with it for many days I could say that OpenOffice developers have done very good work in it. Well done!"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>omlx writes 'The last developer milestone ( DEV300m60 ) of OpenOffice.org has been released .
The next version of OpenOffice.org 3.2 has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements .
The final version is expected to be available at the end of November 2009 .
Many companies have contributed to this version , like RedHat , RedFlag and IBM , making OpenOffice more stable and useful .
I could n't stop myself from seeing new features and enjoying them .
So I downloaded the DEV300m60 version .
After playing with it for many days I could say that OpenOffice developers have done very good work in it .
Well done !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>omlx writes 'The last developer milestone (DEV300m60) of OpenOffice.org has been released.
The next version of OpenOffice.org 3.2 has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements .
The final version is expected to be available at the end of November 2009.
Many companies have contributed to this version, like RedHat, RedFlag and IBM, making OpenOffice more stable and useful.
I couldn't stop myself from seeing new features and enjoying them.
So I downloaded the DEV300m60 version.
After playing with it for many days I could say that OpenOffice developers have done very good work in it.
Well done!
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812375</id>
	<title>Re:More Easier...</title>
	<author>lannocc</author>
	<datestamp>1256068200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thank you, I was waiting for somebody to complain about the "more easier" bit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you , I was waiting for somebody to complain about the " more easier " bit : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you, I was waiting for somebody to complain about the "more easier" bit :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809579</id>
	<title>Feature parity plz.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Request 1) Feature parity with Microsoft Office 2000<br>Request 2) Interface parity with Microsoft Office 2000<br>Request 3) Complete document compatibility with Microsoft Office 2000</p><p>How does OOo 3.2 shape up?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Request 1 ) Feature parity with Microsoft Office 2000Request 2 ) Interface parity with Microsoft Office 2000Request 3 ) Complete document compatibility with Microsoft Office 2000How does OOo 3.2 shape up ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Request 1) Feature parity with Microsoft Office 2000Request 2) Interface parity with Microsoft Office 2000Request 3) Complete document compatibility with Microsoft Office 2000How does OOo 3.2 shape up?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810307</id>
	<title>You insensitive, American clod</title>
	<author>MoxFulder</author>
	<datestamp>1256060940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OpenOffice, like Word and everything else I can think of, gets<br>one fundamental thing wrong in the user interface design.</p><p>Documents are 8 1/2" wide x 11" tall with say 6.5" x 9" tall<br>useable writing area.</p></div><p>Hey!!!  In my country, documents are 210 &#215; 297 mm, you insensitive clod.</p><p>(Okay, so I'm actually an American too.  Fine<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenOffice , like Word and everything else I can think of , getsone fundamental thing wrong in the user interface design.Documents are 8 1/2 " wide x 11 " tall with say 6.5 " x 9 " talluseable writing area.Hey ! ! !
In my country , documents are 210   297 mm , you insensitive clod .
( Okay , so I 'm actually an American too .
Fine : -P. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenOffice, like Word and everything else I can think of, getsone fundamental thing wrong in the user interface design.Documents are 8 1/2" wide x 11" tall with say 6.5" x 9" talluseable writing area.Hey!!!
In my country, documents are 210 × 297 mm, you insensitive clod.
(Okay, so I'm actually an American too.
Fine :-P.)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29819441</id>
	<title>Re:Coloured tabs in Calc?</title>
	<author>Sean0michael</author>
	<datestamp>1256060100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Until these and other niggling incompatibilities are resolved, my wife will still be nagging me to install Office in Wine...</p></div><p>
You sir a a very lucky man.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until these and other niggling incompatibilities are resolved , my wife will still be nagging me to install Office in Wine.. . You sir a a very lucky man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until these and other niggling incompatibilities are resolved, my wife will still be nagging me to install Office in Wine...
You sir a a very lucky man.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810873</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1256062980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Word does allow you to collapse the ribbon and have it slide down on demand as you want, this leaves pretty much all the room except for the status bar and the ribbon tabs.  And the title bar of course.</p><p>In OpenOffice you can remove everything except the title bar and menu bar and put the toolbars on the sides (which is what I do, incidentally).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Word does allow you to collapse the ribbon and have it slide down on demand as you want , this leaves pretty much all the room except for the status bar and the ribbon tabs .
And the title bar of course.In OpenOffice you can remove everything except the title bar and menu bar and put the toolbars on the sides ( which is what I do , incidentally ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Word does allow you to collapse the ribbon and have it slide down on demand as you want, this leaves pretty much all the room except for the status bar and the ribbon tabs.
And the title bar of course.In OpenOffice you can remove everything except the title bar and menu bar and put the toolbars on the sides (which is what I do, incidentally).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812635</id>
	<title>Re:Pass minimum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Then it'll be so secure, even the original author can't open it.</p></div><p>Why not just encrypt with sha1 then?</p><p>Also works as a great compression algorithm!</p><p>Back on track, I agree with your points, if someone wants the PW to be '!', who is OO.o to tell them no?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then it 'll be so secure , even the original author ca n't open it.Why not just encrypt with sha1 then ? Also works as a great compression algorithm ! Back on track , I agree with your points , if someone wants the PW to be ' !
' , who is OO.o to tell them no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then it'll be so secure, even the original author can't open it.Why not just encrypt with sha1 then?Also works as a great compression algorithm!Back on track, I agree with your points, if someone wants the PW to be '!
', who is OO.o to tell them no?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811371</id>
	<title>Re:Vote for the bugs that drive you nuts</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256064660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you for real?? A Comment/UnComment <strong>button? In a <em>code editor</em>?? Now that's some really fucked up shit!<br>What's next? Letter buttons that you have to click with the mouse too? No keyboard support? Buttons labeled "left click" and "right click" and a "mouse" image that you have do drag over one virtual desktop with a drag-and-drop operation of your real mouse, so the second pointer moves over the other virtual desktop??</strong></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you for real ? ?
A Comment/UnComment button ?
In a code editor ? ?
Now that 's some really fucked up shit ! What 's next ?
Letter buttons that you have to click with the mouse too ?
No keyboard support ?
Buttons labeled " left click " and " right click " and a " mouse " image that you have do drag over one virtual desktop with a drag-and-drop operation of your real mouse , so the second pointer moves over the other virtual desktop ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you for real??
A Comment/UnComment button?
In a code editor??
Now that's some really fucked up shit!What's next?
Letter buttons that you have to click with the mouse too?
No keyboard support?
Buttons labeled "left click" and "right click" and a "mouse" image that you have do drag over one virtual desktop with a drag-and-drop operation of your real mouse, so the second pointer moves over the other virtual desktop?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811995</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256066700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Word, View&gt;FullScreen (Alt-V,U). This will get rid of status bar, menu bar, window borders and everything so you see just the page.</p><p>You can put all the toolbars and menus wherever you want, horizontally at the top or vertically at the side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Word , View &gt; FullScreen ( Alt-V,U ) .
This will get rid of status bar , menu bar , window borders and everything so you see just the page.You can put all the toolbars and menus wherever you want , horizontally at the top or vertically at the side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Word, View&gt;FullScreen (Alt-V,U).
This will get rid of status bar, menu bar, window borders and everything so you see just the page.You can put all the toolbars and menus wherever you want, horizontally at the top or vertically at the side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809359</id>
	<title>Re:Pass minimum</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1256057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>5 characters isn't much to bruteforce anyway.</p><p>I suspect they eliminated a password length requirement because the security of the password is really up to the needs and desires of the user who set that password.  If I have a password length of 5, then someone who wants a trivial password to keep casual lookie-loos out is going to choose 12345 anyway.</p><p>("Amazing!  That's the same as the combination on my suitcase!")</p><p>Allow me to choose one character minimum and I'll choose one character and use it.  No real loss in security, and since I'm choosing the level of security it's my decision to make.  I can't sue OO for "lack of security" because OO is simply allowing me to choose how secure I want my stuff.</p><p>Someone who wants to protect (as in really protect) their document is going to choose a 50-character password with a mix of uppers, lowers, numbers, and scrunchy special characters.  Then it'll be so secure, even the original author can't open it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>5 characters is n't much to bruteforce anyway.I suspect they eliminated a password length requirement because the security of the password is really up to the needs and desires of the user who set that password .
If I have a password length of 5 , then someone who wants a trivial password to keep casual lookie-loos out is going to choose 12345 anyway. ( " Amazing !
That 's the same as the combination on my suitcase !
" ) Allow me to choose one character minimum and I 'll choose one character and use it .
No real loss in security , and since I 'm choosing the level of security it 's my decision to make .
I ca n't sue OO for " lack of security " because OO is simply allowing me to choose how secure I want my stuff.Someone who wants to protect ( as in really protect ) their document is going to choose a 50-character password with a mix of uppers , lowers , numbers , and scrunchy special characters .
Then it 'll be so secure , even the original author ca n't open it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5 characters isn't much to bruteforce anyway.I suspect they eliminated a password length requirement because the security of the password is really up to the needs and desires of the user who set that password.
If I have a password length of 5, then someone who wants a trivial password to keep casual lookie-loos out is going to choose 12345 anyway.("Amazing!
That's the same as the combination on my suitcase!
")Allow me to choose one character minimum and I'll choose one character and use it.
No real loss in security, and since I'm choosing the level of security it's my decision to make.
I can't sue OO for "lack of security" because OO is simply allowing me to choose how secure I want my stuff.Someone who wants to protect (as in really protect) their document is going to choose a 50-character password with a mix of uppers, lowers, numbers, and scrunchy special characters.
Then it'll be so secure, even the original author can't open it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29820663</id>
	<title>Finally Rudimentary OpenType/CFF support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256118420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been waiting for this like two years... Finally rudimentary OpenType/CFF support... Next stop... Full OpenType support... Small Caps, Old Style Figures anybody?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been waiting for this like two years... Finally rudimentary OpenType/CFF support... Next stop... Full OpenType support... Small Caps , Old Style Figures anybody ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been waiting for this like two years... Finally rudimentary OpenType/CFF support... Next stop... Full OpenType support... Small Caps, Old Style Figures anybody?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29820079</id>
	<title>Re:What about RTF support</title>
	<author>dotancohen</author>
	<datestamp>1256067300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please file an issue at the OOo bug tracker with a test document. Or sent it to me, my gmail address is the same as my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. username. Without the test document OOo cannot improve.</p><p>Thanks!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please file an issue at the OOo bug tracker with a test document .
Or sent it to me , my gmail address is the same as my / .
username. Without the test document OOo can not improve.Thanks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please file an issue at the OOo bug tracker with a test document.
Or sent it to me, my gmail address is the same as my /.
username. Without the test document OOo cannot improve.Thanks!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810113</id>
	<title>Re:What about the fscking ribbon?!</title>
	<author>Abreu</author>
	<datestamp>1256060400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to remember that the proposed ribbon was an option, not a requirement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to remember that the proposed ribbon was an option , not a requirement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to remember that the proposed ribbon was an option, not a requirement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809299</id>
	<title>Coloured tabs in Calc?</title>
	<author>tom17</author>
	<datestamp>1256057760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see any mention of coloured tabs in Calc. I know it's a silly little thing, but some people use coloured tabs in Excel and this means that you can't edit these files on OO.org without losing the colour information.
<p>
And does it render the same as Excel/Word yet?
</p><p>
Until these and other niggling incompatibilities are resolved, my wife will still be nagging me to install Office in Wine...
</p><p>
Tom...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see any mention of coloured tabs in Calc .
I know it 's a silly little thing , but some people use coloured tabs in Excel and this means that you ca n't edit these files on OO.org without losing the colour information .
And does it render the same as Excel/Word yet ?
Until these and other niggling incompatibilities are resolved , my wife will still be nagging me to install Office in Wine.. . Tom.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see any mention of coloured tabs in Calc.
I know it's a silly little thing, but some people use coloured tabs in Excel and this means that you can't edit these files on OO.org without losing the colour information.
And does it render the same as Excel/Word yet?
Until these and other niggling incompatibilities are resolved, my wife will still be nagging me to install Office in Wine...

Tom...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815761</id>
	<title>XP theme</title>
	<author>siyavash</author>
	<datestamp>1256038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows XP called... it wants its theme back. This thing looks horrible. I gladly pay $100 for "real" Microsft Office, thank you very much. Imagine sitting in front of this crap all day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows XP called... it wants its theme back .
This thing looks horrible .
I gladly pay $ 100 for " real " Microsft Office , thank you very much .
Imagine sitting in front of this crap all day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows XP called... it wants its theme back.
This thing looks horrible.
I gladly pay $100 for "real" Microsft Office, thank you very much.
Imagine sitting in front of this crap all day.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809275</id>
	<title>What about the fscking ribbon?!</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1256057640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I'm sure that a lot of people will enjoy more convenient typing in of passwords on openoffice documents and typing in Tamil fonts, I'm a little more concerned about the proposed ribbon interface from <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/08/05/1951244" title="slashdot.org">a while back</a> [slashdot.org].  In the one screenshot in TFA that showed the toolbar, it looked like the usual icon driven interface.  Can anyone confirm that a non-ribbon UI will still be available?</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm sure that a lot of people will enjoy more convenient typing in of passwords on openoffice documents and typing in Tamil fonts , I 'm a little more concerned about the proposed ribbon interface from a while back [ slashdot.org ] .
In the one screenshot in TFA that showed the toolbar , it looked like the usual icon driven interface .
Can anyone confirm that a non-ribbon UI will still be available ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm sure that a lot of people will enjoy more convenient typing in of passwords on openoffice documents and typing in Tamil fonts, I'm a little more concerned about the proposed ribbon interface from a while back [slashdot.org].
In the one screenshot in TFA that showed the toolbar, it looked like the usual icon driven interface.
Can anyone confirm that a non-ribbon UI will still be available?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811451</id>
	<title>Re:Vote for the bugs that drive you nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256064960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In calc, "Undo" does not work with charts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In calc , " Undo " does not work with charts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In calc, "Undo" does not work with charts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810503</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>MSG</author>
	<datestamp>1256061600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would agree with you, except that your range of motion tends to be greater left to right than it is forward and back.  That means that it's easier to move your mouse along horizontal controls.</p><p>Rotating your screen solves the problem much better.  You maintain the horizontal mouse-friendly controls and get more vertical viewing area.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would agree with you , except that your range of motion tends to be greater left to right than it is forward and back .
That means that it 's easier to move your mouse along horizontal controls.Rotating your screen solves the problem much better .
You maintain the horizontal mouse-friendly controls and get more vertical viewing area .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would agree with you, except that your range of motion tends to be greater left to right than it is forward and back.
That means that it's easier to move your mouse along horizontal controls.Rotating your screen solves the problem much better.
You maintain the horizontal mouse-friendly controls and get more vertical viewing area.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811175</id>
	<title>The UI is still broken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256063940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They still have not replaced the Windows 95 UI that they mimick. I recommend everyone to stay using Office 2007+ or iWorks until they fix that mess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still have not replaced the Windows 95 UI that they mimick .
I recommend everyone to stay using Office 2007 + or iWorks until they fix that mess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still have not replaced the Windows 95 UI that they mimick.
I recommend everyone to stay using Office 2007+ or iWorks until they fix that mess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811641</id>
	<title>Countries using imperial measures vs metric!</title>
	<author>fantomas</author>
	<datestamp>1256065680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back to the old "countries using Imperial measures vs. customs using metric"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Another poster has noted Open Offices identifies 8 American countries using Imperial, rest of world (190 or so countries) using metric. Get with the 21st century, Americans! (and Burmese and Liberians as well I believe).</p><p>: -)</p><p>This morning I was printing a Powerpoint slide in A3 for a friend (long story) and the default screen asked me if I wanted it 16 1/4 inches by 7 1/2 furlongs or something. Millimetres please, I can't think in inches, I am 43 and I got taught mm and cm and metres at school from when I was 5 back in 1971.... (UK). Nobody my age or younger has been taught to measure in Imperial measures in UK schools. A lot of us know how to use them informally because that helps us deal with old folks, but it's not what we were formally taught.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back to the old " countries using Imperial measures vs. customs using metric " : - ) Another poster has noted Open Offices identifies 8 American countries using Imperial , rest of world ( 190 or so countries ) using metric .
Get with the 21st century , Americans !
( and Burmese and Liberians as well I believe ) .
: - ) This morning I was printing a Powerpoint slide in A3 for a friend ( long story ) and the default screen asked me if I wanted it 16 1/4 inches by 7 1/2 furlongs or something .
Millimetres please , I ca n't think in inches , I am 43 and I got taught mm and cm and metres at school from when I was 5 back in 1971.... ( UK ) . Nobody my age or younger has been taught to measure in Imperial measures in UK schools .
A lot of us know how to use them informally because that helps us deal with old folks , but it 's not what we were formally taught .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back to the old "countries using Imperial measures vs. customs using metric" :-)Another poster has noted Open Offices identifies 8 American countries using Imperial, rest of world (190 or so countries) using metric.
Get with the 21st century, Americans!
(and Burmese and Liberians as well I believe).
: -)This morning I was printing a Powerpoint slide in A3 for a friend (long story) and the default screen asked me if I wanted it 16 1/4 inches by 7 1/2 furlongs or something.
Millimetres please, I can't think in inches, I am 43 and I got taught mm and cm and metres at school from when I was 5 back in 1971.... (UK). Nobody my age or younger has been taught to measure in Imperial measures in UK schools.
A lot of us know how to use them informally because that helps us deal with old folks, but it's not what we were formally taught.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809451</id>
	<title>Wow, amazing improvement.</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1256058240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People complained about Windows 7's GUI "tricks"/tweaks.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Default button in password dialog now is "OK"</p></div><p>That's the first entry under "more easier."  Amazing.  I bet it took a developer a long time to fix that, too.  Probably weeks!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ??  It doesn't even seem worth mentioning, really.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People complained about Windows 7 's GUI " tricks " /tweaks.Default button in password dialog now is " OK " That 's the first entry under " more easier .
" Amazing .
I bet it took a developer a long time to fix that , too .
Probably weeks !
... ? ?
It does n't even seem worth mentioning , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People complained about Windows 7's GUI "tricks"/tweaks.Default button in password dialog now is "OK"That's the first entry under "more easier.
"  Amazing.
I bet it took a developer a long time to fix that, too.
Probably weeks!
... ??
It doesn't even seem worth mentioning, really.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812429</id>
	<title>More than 42 features ...</title>
	<author>delibes</author>
	<datestamp>1256068320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... 43 then? 44? Any higher bids?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So ... 43 then ?
44 ? Any higher bids ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So ... 43 then?
44? Any higher bids?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811069</id>
	<title>Re:Why no online version of OpenOffice?</title>
	<author>sowth</author>
	<datestamp>1256063700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you talking about? Doesn't OpenOffice run over the X11 Windowing System? Just install it on a server and run it from your X terminal.

</p><p>I hear X doesn't run well with high latency, but that is Al Gore's problem. It's his job to fix the innernet tubes! If you just can't live with it, I suppose you could try porting OO to <a href="http://picogui.org/" title="picogui.org">PicoGUI</a> [picogui.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about ?
Does n't OpenOffice run over the X11 Windowing System ?
Just install it on a server and run it from your X terminal .
I hear X does n't run well with high latency , but that is Al Gore 's problem .
It 's his job to fix the innernet tubes !
If you just ca n't live with it , I suppose you could try porting OO to PicoGUI [ picogui.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about?
Doesn't OpenOffice run over the X11 Windowing System?
Just install it on a server and run it from your X terminal.
I hear X doesn't run well with high latency, but that is Al Gore's problem.
It's his job to fix the innernet tubes!
If you just can't live with it, I suppose you could try porting OO to PicoGUI [picogui.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809133</id>
	<title>Pass minimum</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1256057280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Remove the password length limitation:</p><p>&ldquo; The current minimal password length limitation ( 5 characters ) is outdated and makes no sense any more. Thus the limitation is removed, although the password is not allowed to be empty. &ldquo;</p></div><p>This was an interesting note, but they didn't explain it further. Why did they change the minimum from 5 characters to 1 character now? It sounds it might be pretty trivial to bruteforce it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remove the password length limitation :    The current minimal password length limitation ( 5 characters ) is outdated and makes no sense any more .
Thus the limitation is removed , although the password is not allowed to be empty .
   This was an interesting note , but they did n't explain it further .
Why did they change the minimum from 5 characters to 1 character now ?
It sounds it might be pretty trivial to bruteforce it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remove the password length limitation:“ The current minimal password length limitation ( 5 characters ) is outdated and makes no sense any more.
Thus the limitation is removed, although the password is not allowed to be empty.
“This was an interesting note, but they didn't explain it further.
Why did they change the minimum from 5 characters to 1 character now?
It sounds it might be pretty trivial to bruteforce it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809779</id>
	<title>What about RTF support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256059380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Currently RTF support is horrible for both reading and writing. We are evaluating and tring to replace Microsoft Office 2003. To our suprise while doc support has gotten better in the last revision, RTF is so broken in the current stable release it's not even funny. Save a file as rtf and open in again: usually it does not look the same. Lists, numbering, picture support - almost everything is broken. We are trying hard to replace MS Office, but damn....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Currently RTF support is horrible for both reading and writing .
We are evaluating and tring to replace Microsoft Office 2003 .
To our suprise while doc support has gotten better in the last revision , RTF is so broken in the current stable release it 's not even funny .
Save a file as rtf and open in again : usually it does not look the same .
Lists , numbering , picture support - almost everything is broken .
We are trying hard to replace MS Office , but damn... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Currently RTF support is horrible for both reading and writing.
We are evaluating and tring to replace Microsoft Office 2003.
To our suprise while doc support has gotten better in the last revision, RTF is so broken in the current stable release it's not even funny.
Save a file as rtf and open in again: usually it does not look the same.
Lists, numbering, picture support - almost everything is broken.
We are trying hard to replace MS Office, but damn....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810355</id>
	<title>Why do we need to "sneak"?</title>
	<author>dpuu</author>
	<datestamp>1256061120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If OpenOffice is "open", then why does a preview need to be a "sneak" preview? That term should be used for a review of something that has been developed behind closed doors, that we are only now being given a brief glimpse of...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If OpenOffice is " open " , then why does a preview need to be a " sneak " preview ?
That term should be used for a review of something that has been developed behind closed doors , that we are only now being given a brief glimpse of.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If OpenOffice is "open", then why does a preview need to be a "sneak" preview?
That term should be used for a review of something that has been developed behind closed doors, that we are only now being given a brief glimpse of...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809343</id>
	<title>doesn't have X feeture :)</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1256057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Me first, me first with the 'doesn't have $X feeture'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me first , me first with the 'does n't have $ X feeture ' : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me first, me first with the 'doesn't have $X feeture' :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811439</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256064900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bah. That's nothing. They still have <strong>buttons</strong>! In a <em>text</em> processing app! And modal dialogs!</p><p>Even Lotus WordPro was years ahead of that, despite also being mouse-controlled. But at least it was state-based with cascading style classes!</p><p>It's really a sad state. What pathetic people do, to be "accepted" by those who have never seen something different than MS default...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah .
That 's nothing .
They still have buttons !
In a text processing app !
And modal dialogs ! Even Lotus WordPro was years ahead of that , despite also being mouse-controlled .
But at least it was state-based with cascading style classes ! It 's really a sad state .
What pathetic people do , to be " accepted " by those who have never seen something different than MS default.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah.
That's nothing.
They still have buttons!
In a text processing app!
And modal dialogs!Even Lotus WordPro was years ahead of that, despite also being mouse-controlled.
But at least it was state-based with cascading style classes!It's really a sad state.
What pathetic people do, to be "accepted" by those who have never seen something different than MS default...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810459</id>
	<title>Alternative site</title>
	<author>Lawand</author>
	<datestamp>1256061420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here is a <a href="http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Features#Features\_planned\_for\_OOo\_3.2\_.28December\_2009.29" title="openoffice.org" rel="nofollow">list of the new features</a> [openoffice.org] (in case you can't access the page like me, because the server is busy)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a list of the new features [ openoffice.org ] ( in case you ca n't access the page like me , because the server is busy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a list of the new features [openoffice.org] (in case you can't access the page like me, because the server is busy)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809099</id>
	<title>Faster...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256057160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Many issues have been fixed in order to make OpenOffice.org faster. The happy news that OpenOffice.org 3.2 is now faster than before in many aspects. The startup now 30\% faster in Windows."<br> <br>
Thank God.  If it got any slower and more bloated...  I just hope Linux is also faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Many issues have been fixed in order to make OpenOffice.org faster .
The happy news that OpenOffice.org 3.2 is now faster than before in many aspects .
The startup now 30 \ % faster in Windows .
" Thank God .
If it got any slower and more bloated... I just hope Linux is also faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Many issues have been fixed in order to make OpenOffice.org faster.
The happy news that OpenOffice.org 3.2 is now faster than before in many aspects.
The startup now 30\% faster in Windows.
" 
Thank God.
If it got any slower and more bloated...  I just hope Linux is also faster.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811229</id>
	<title>Default Open/Save?</title>
	<author>Grizzley9</author>
	<datestamp>1256064060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did they fix the default save location?  It never fails (OO.o is not alone) when family goes to save or open a new document, many times it will open some obscure buried folder or a temp folder somewhere instead of the standard user's 'documents' folder.  I know you can set this but that doesn't help spouses and grandparents that are not familiar with file structure.  "I know I saved it, but I can't find it" is a common phrases heard on my family's tech support line.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did they fix the default save location ?
It never fails ( OO.o is not alone ) when family goes to save or open a new document , many times it will open some obscure buried folder or a temp folder somewhere instead of the standard user 's 'documents ' folder .
I know you can set this but that does n't help spouses and grandparents that are not familiar with file structure .
" I know I saved it , but I ca n't find it " is a common phrases heard on my family 's tech support line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did they fix the default save location?
It never fails (OO.o is not alone) when family goes to save or open a new document, many times it will open some obscure buried folder or a temp folder somewhere instead of the standard user's 'documents' folder.
I know you can set this but that doesn't help spouses and grandparents that are not familiar with file structure.
"I know I saved it, but I can't find it" is a common phrases heard on my family's tech support line.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812187</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256067360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wide screens allow two tall applications side-by-side. Alternatively,  they allow two letter-sized pages side-by-side (an option in OpenOffice).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wide screens allow two tall applications side-by-side .
Alternatively , they allow two letter-sized pages side-by-side ( an option in OpenOffice ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wide screens allow two tall applications side-by-side.
Alternatively,  they allow two letter-sized pages side-by-side (an option in OpenOffice).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815759</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256038200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>smartest comment yet - thanks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>smartest comment yet - thanks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>smartest comment yet - thanks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809207</id>
	<title>More Easier...</title>
	<author>xtracto</author>
	<datestamp>1256057460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now now...</p><p>If you have used Microsoft Word to write your blog you would have seen that "more easier" is kind of green-underline (i.e., it does not make sense).</p><p>That hurt even *my* eyes... and my native language is not English.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now now...If you have used Microsoft Word to write your blog you would have seen that " more easier " is kind of green-underline ( i.e. , it does not make sense ) .That hurt even * my * eyes... and my native language is not English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now now...If you have used Microsoft Word to write your blog you would have seen that "more easier" is kind of green-underline (i.e., it does not make sense).That hurt even *my* eyes... and my native language is not English.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809165</id>
	<title>bloated-office</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>OpenOffice.org 3.2 has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements</p></div></blockquote><p>
No more bloat please, I've had enough already...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenOffice.org 3.2 has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements No more bloat please , I 've had enough already.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenOffice.org 3.2 has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements
No more bloat please, I've had enough already...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811663</id>
	<title>Re:More easier?</title>
	<author>recoiledsnake</author>
	<datestamp>1256065740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Based on the section headings from TFA, I gather that <b>version 3.2</b> is more secure, faster, more international, and more easier.</p><p>Apparently a grammar checker isn't one of the 42 new features.</p></div><p>You're wrong.</p><p>From the summary and the FTA:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> The <b>next version of OpenOffice.org 3.2</b> has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements...</p></div><p>So it's version 3.3(or maybe 3.21 or 4.0) that's more easier, not 3.2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the section headings from TFA , I gather that version 3.2 is more secure , faster , more international , and more easier.Apparently a grammar checker is n't one of the 42 new features.You 're wrong.From the summary and the FTA : The next version of OpenOffice.org 3.2 has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements...So it 's version 3.3 ( or maybe 3.21 or 4.0 ) that 's more easier , not 3.2 : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the section headings from TFA, I gather that version 3.2 is more secure, faster, more international, and more easier.Apparently a grammar checker isn't one of the 42 new features.You're wrong.From the summary and the FTA: The next version of OpenOffice.org 3.2 has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements...So it's version 3.3(or maybe 3.21 or 4.0) that's more easier, not 3.2 :)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29816285</id>
	<title>All I want to know is...</title>
	<author>gcerullo</author>
	<datestamp>1256041080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When are they going to finally dump the '.org' from the name.

This is an application after all not a web site. Who came up with that anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When are they going to finally dump the '.org ' from the name .
This is an application after all not a web site .
Who came up with that anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When are they going to finally dump the '.org' from the name.
This is an application after all not a web site.
Who came up with that anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810085</id>
	<title>42 Features</title>
	<author>heritage727</author>
	<datestamp>1256060280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, I guess OpenOffice.org really is the answer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , I guess OpenOffice.org really is the answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, I guess OpenOffice.org really is the answer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507</id>
	<title>Why no online version of OpenOffice?</title>
	<author>Kate6</author>
	<datestamp>1256058360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's interesting to see how many companies are putting work into this product considering the gradual rise of online based office suites like Google Docs.
</p><p>
In early 2008 I went through some personal events that caused me to suddenly lose access to my primary desktop.  When a co-worker introduced me to Google Docs, I immediately liked the idea of having all my important documents be stored somewhere that I could access from any Internet enabled device.  Since then I've also come to appreciate the ease of collaborations using Google Docs.  I've had whole discussions about requirements documents that went on completely through Google Docs - the client would type in some basic concept of what they'd wanted, I'd reformat it to more formal requirements while they watched, they'd edit, I'd start working and add in notes or questions as they came along, they'd add in replies...  It's been absolutely fantastic for streamlining off-site development processes.
</p><p>
And now I hear Google is planning on capitalizing further on that aspect with the upcoming <a href="http://wave.google.com/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google Wave</a> [google.com]...  And Microsoft is planning to release an <a href="http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/07/13/microsoft-office-to-go-online-for-free/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">online version of Office 2010</a> [cnn.com]...  And I'm yet to hear of similar plans from the OpenOffice scene.
</p><p>
Which makes me sad.  I've been an OpenOffice user for most of the last decade...  Started using it when it was still StarOffice, before Sun bought and open sourced it.  I'd hate to see it fall by the wayside.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's interesting to see how many companies are putting work into this product considering the gradual rise of online based office suites like Google Docs .
In early 2008 I went through some personal events that caused me to suddenly lose access to my primary desktop .
When a co-worker introduced me to Google Docs , I immediately liked the idea of having all my important documents be stored somewhere that I could access from any Internet enabled device .
Since then I 've also come to appreciate the ease of collaborations using Google Docs .
I 've had whole discussions about requirements documents that went on completely through Google Docs - the client would type in some basic concept of what they 'd wanted , I 'd reformat it to more formal requirements while they watched , they 'd edit , I 'd start working and add in notes or questions as they came along , they 'd add in replies... It 's been absolutely fantastic for streamlining off-site development processes .
And now I hear Google is planning on capitalizing further on that aspect with the upcoming Google Wave [ google.com ] ... And Microsoft is planning to release an online version of Office 2010 [ cnn.com ] ... And I 'm yet to hear of similar plans from the OpenOffice scene .
Which makes me sad .
I 've been an OpenOffice user for most of the last decade... Started using it when it was still StarOffice , before Sun bought and open sourced it .
I 'd hate to see it fall by the wayside .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's interesting to see how many companies are putting work into this product considering the gradual rise of online based office suites like Google Docs.
In early 2008 I went through some personal events that caused me to suddenly lose access to my primary desktop.
When a co-worker introduced me to Google Docs, I immediately liked the idea of having all my important documents be stored somewhere that I could access from any Internet enabled device.
Since then I've also come to appreciate the ease of collaborations using Google Docs.
I've had whole discussions about requirements documents that went on completely through Google Docs - the client would type in some basic concept of what they'd wanted, I'd reformat it to more formal requirements while they watched, they'd edit, I'd start working and add in notes or questions as they came along, they'd add in replies...  It's been absolutely fantastic for streamlining off-site development processes.
And now I hear Google is planning on capitalizing further on that aspect with the upcoming Google Wave [google.com]...  And Microsoft is planning to release an online version of Office 2010 [cnn.com]...  And I'm yet to hear of similar plans from the OpenOffice scene.
Which makes me sad.
I've been an OpenOffice user for most of the last decade...  Started using it when it was still StarOffice, before Sun bought and open sourced it.
I'd hate to see it fall by the wayside.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810327</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Word 2000, you can simply drag the Standard and Formatting toolbars (or any other toolbar) and dock them to the left (or right) of the screen, causing the icons to be displayed in a vertical strip.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Word 2000 , you can simply drag the Standard and Formatting toolbars ( or any other toolbar ) and dock them to the left ( or right ) of the screen , causing the icons to be displayed in a vertical strip .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Word 2000, you can simply drag the Standard and Formatting toolbars (or any other toolbar) and dock them to the left (or right) of the screen, causing the icons to be displayed in a vertical strip.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810911</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>sorak</author>
	<datestamp>1256063160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is interesting, but I would suggest that, if they do that, that they find a way to work the icons/ribbon such that it can work either way. Text documents are typically done in portrait orientation, but spreadsheets are often done via landscape orientation. If the UI adjusted to the orientation, that would be cool (but time consuming for some developers, I'm sure)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is interesting , but I would suggest that , if they do that , that they find a way to work the icons/ribbon such that it can work either way .
Text documents are typically done in portrait orientation , but spreadsheets are often done via landscape orientation .
If the UI adjusted to the orientation , that would be cool ( but time consuming for some developers , I 'm sure )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is interesting, but I would suggest that, if they do that, that they find a way to work the icons/ribbon such that it can work either way.
Text documents are typically done in portrait orientation, but spreadsheets are often done via landscape orientation.
If the UI adjusted to the orientation, that would be cool (but time consuming for some developers, I'm sure)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809777</id>
	<title>Re:Why no online version of OpenOffice?</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1256059380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does OOo need to compete with Google Docs? They both support ODF. There's no need for Sun and Google to get into an online office war.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does OOo need to compete with Google Docs ?
They both support ODF .
There 's no need for Sun and Google to get into an online office war .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does OOo need to compete with Google Docs?
They both support ODF.
There's no need for Sun and Google to get into an online office war.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814097</id>
	<title>Re:Coloured tabs in Calc?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1256031780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your wife wants MS Office, install MS Office. It sounds like you're looking for a free copy of MS Office, rather than a compatible, different office suite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your wife wants MS Office , install MS Office .
It sounds like you 're looking for a free copy of MS Office , rather than a compatible , different office suite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your wife wants MS Office, install MS Office.
It sounds like you're looking for a free copy of MS Office, rather than a compatible, different office suite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810189</id>
	<title>Re:What about RTF support</title>
	<author>denis-The-menace</author>
	<datestamp>1256060580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was going to say post links to the RTF issue that you are talking about but I did a Search and H01y$hit!<br>229 issues!</p><p><a href="http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue\_type=DEFECT&amp;issue\_type=ENHANCEMENT&amp;issue\_type=FEATURE&amp;issue\_type=PATCH&amp;issue\_status=UNCONFIRMED&amp;issue\_status=NEW&amp;issue\_status=STARTED&amp;issue\_status=REOPENED&amp;issue\_status=RESOLVED&amp;email1=&amp;emailtype1=exact&amp;emailassigned\_to1=1&amp;email2=&amp;emailtype2=exact&amp;emailreporter2=1&amp;issueidtype=include&amp;issue\_id=&amp;changedin=&amp;votes=&amp;chfieldfrom=&amp;chfieldto=&amp;chfieldvalue=&amp;short\_desc=rtf&amp;short\_desc\_type=allwords&amp;long\_desc=&amp;long\_desc\_type=allwords&amp;issue\_file\_loc=&amp;issue\_file\_loc\_type=fulltext&amp;status\_whiteboard=&amp;status\_whiteboard\_type=fulltext&amp;keywords=&amp;keywords\_type=anytokens&amp;field0-0-0=noop&amp;type0-0-0=noop&amp;value0-0-0=&amp;cmdtype=doit&amp;order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&amp;Submit+query=Submit+query" title="openoffice.org">http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue\_type=DEFECT&amp;issue\_type=ENHANCEMENT&amp;issue\_type=FEATURE&amp;issue\_type=PATCH&amp;issue\_status=UNCONFIRMED&amp;issue\_status=NEW&amp;issue\_status=STARTED&amp;issue\_status=REOPENED&amp;issue\_status=RESOLVED&amp;email1=&amp;emailtype1=exact&amp;emailassigned\_to1=1&amp;email2=&amp;emailtype2=exact&amp;emailreporter2=1&amp;issueidtype=include&amp;issue\_id=&amp;changedin=&amp;votes=&amp;chfieldfrom=&amp;chfieldto=&amp;chfieldvalue=&amp;short\_desc=rtf&amp;short\_desc\_type=allwords&amp;long\_desc=&amp;long\_desc\_type=allwords&amp;issue\_file\_loc=&amp;issue\_file\_loc\_type=fulltext&amp;status\_whiteboard=&amp;status\_whiteboard\_type=fulltext&amp;keywords=&amp;keywords\_type=anytokens&amp;field0-0-0=noop&amp;type0-0-0=noop&amp;value0-0-0=&amp;cmdtype=doit&amp;order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&amp;Submit+query=Submit+query</a> [openoffice.org]</p><p>I voted for the big ones I could see but all you can do is vote for the big ones for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was going to say post links to the RTF issue that you are talking about but I did a Search and H01y $ hit ! 229 issues ! http : //qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi ? issue \ _type = DEFECT&amp;issue \ _type = ENHANCEMENT&amp;issue \ _type = FEATURE&amp;issue \ _type = PATCH&amp;issue \ _status = UNCONFIRMED&amp;issue \ _status = NEW&amp;issue \ _status = STARTED&amp;issue \ _status = REOPENED&amp;issue \ _status = RESOLVED&amp;email1 = &amp;emailtype1 = exact&amp;emailassigned \ _to1 = 1&amp;email2 = &amp;emailtype2 = exact&amp;emailreporter2 = 1&amp;issueidtype = include&amp;issue \ _id = &amp;changedin = &amp;votes = &amp;chfieldfrom = &amp;chfieldto = &amp;chfieldvalue = &amp;short \ _desc = rtf&amp;short \ _desc \ _type = allwords&amp;long \ _desc = &amp;long \ _desc \ _type = allwords&amp;issue \ _file \ _loc = &amp;issue \ _file \ _loc \ _type = fulltext&amp;status \ _whiteboard = &amp;status \ _whiteboard \ _type = fulltext&amp;keywords = &amp;keywords \ _type = anytokens&amp;field0-0-0 = noop&amp;type0-0-0 = noop&amp;value0-0-0 = &amp;cmdtype = doit&amp;order = Reuse + same + sort + as + last + time&amp;Submit + query = Submit + query [ openoffice.org ] I voted for the big ones I could see but all you can do is vote for the big ones for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was going to say post links to the RTF issue that you are talking about but I did a Search and H01y$hit!229 issues!http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue\_type=DEFECT&amp;issue\_type=ENHANCEMENT&amp;issue\_type=FEATURE&amp;issue\_type=PATCH&amp;issue\_status=UNCONFIRMED&amp;issue\_status=NEW&amp;issue\_status=STARTED&amp;issue\_status=REOPENED&amp;issue\_status=RESOLVED&amp;email1=&amp;emailtype1=exact&amp;emailassigned\_to1=1&amp;email2=&amp;emailtype2=exact&amp;emailreporter2=1&amp;issueidtype=include&amp;issue\_id=&amp;changedin=&amp;votes=&amp;chfieldfrom=&amp;chfieldto=&amp;chfieldvalue=&amp;short\_desc=rtf&amp;short\_desc\_type=allwords&amp;long\_desc=&amp;long\_desc\_type=allwords&amp;issue\_file\_loc=&amp;issue\_file\_loc\_type=fulltext&amp;status\_whiteboard=&amp;status\_whiteboard\_type=fulltext&amp;keywords=&amp;keywords\_type=anytokens&amp;field0-0-0=noop&amp;type0-0-0=noop&amp;value0-0-0=&amp;cmdtype=doit&amp;order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&amp;Submit+query=Submit+query [openoffice.org]I voted for the big ones I could see but all you can do is vote for the big ones for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809779</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29817077</id>
	<title>Re:More Easier...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256044980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You better use Windows Live Writer in blogging, it is AWESOME, and it imports your blog styles in edit &amp; preview modes, so you can get a feeling of the result before publishing, and it is free</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You better use Windows Live Writer in blogging , it is AWESOME , and it imports your blog styles in edit &amp; preview modes , so you can get a feeling of the result before publishing , and it is free</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You better use Windows Live Writer in blogging, it is AWESOME, and it imports your blog styles in edit &amp; preview modes, so you can get a feeling of the result before publishing, and it is free</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814401</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256032680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously you cannot think of kword, which approaches this, almost everything is in the sidebar - except load / save / print. But that can be moved in one click. see: <a href="http://www.koffice.org/kword/" title="koffice.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.koffice.org/kword/</a> [koffice.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously you can not think of kword , which approaches this , almost everything is in the sidebar - except load / save / print .
But that can be moved in one click .
see : http : //www.koffice.org/kword/ [ koffice.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously you cannot think of kword, which approaches this, almost everything is in the sidebar - except load / save / print.
But that can be moved in one click.
see: http://www.koffice.org/kword/ [koffice.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812809</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256069820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Sir,<br><a href="http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Proposal\_by\_Johannes\_Eva" title="openoffice.org" rel="nofollow">this might be relevant to your interests</a> [openoffice.org].</p><p>Yours truly,</p><p>Anon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Sir,this might be relevant to your interests [ openoffice.org ] .Yours truly,Anon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Sir,this might be relevant to your interests [openoffice.org].Yours truly,Anon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811495</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256065140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like<br>you will not<br>benefit from<br>this.<br>Your screen<br>seems quite<br>narrow to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks likeyou will notbenefit fromthis.Your screenseems quitenarrow to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks likeyou will notbenefit fromthis.Your screenseems quitenarrow to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811259</id>
	<title>Re:More Easier...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256064180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's make it "most more easiereteretest". And for our french readers: "Que jususs useruss chasserassass".</p><p>*x(man)tracto's head explodes, splattering the brains on the walls*</p><p>MUHAHAHAHAAA! The world will be MINE!!! *strokes white cat with metal glove*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's make it " most more easiereteretest " .
And for our french readers : " Que jususs useruss chasserassass " .
* x ( man ) tracto 's head explodes , splattering the brains on the walls * MUHAHAHAHAAA !
The world will be MINE ! ! !
* strokes white cat with metal glove *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's make it "most more easiereteretest".
And for our french readers: "Que jususs useruss chasserassass".
*x(man)tracto's head explodes, splattering the brains on the walls*MUHAHAHAHAAA!
The world will be MINE!!!
*strokes white cat with metal glove*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810291</id>
	<title>Re:More Easier...</title>
	<author>Ed Avis</author>
	<datestamp>1256060940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, it should be written 'easierer'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it should be written 'easierer' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it should be written 'easierer'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809435</id>
	<title>Calculating with text</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the "<a href="http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show\_bug.cgi?id=5658" title="openoffice.org">fixes</a> [openoffice.org]" is that it will convert text cells to numbers in formulae if it can. This is one of the major differences from Excel that led Microsoft to move all their formulae into a different namespace, in order to prevent users from seeing behavioural inconsistencies across products. That's the way they put it, The Internet described it as deliberately breaking interoperability. I'm agnostic on that distinction, but OOo is now in line with just about every other spreadsheet in existence including Excel, Gnumeric, and Google Docs in this respect. It will be interesting to see what happens to the msoxl namespace when this comes out. I don't know if 3.2 will convert the msoxl namespace formuale to the default namespace when it opens an Excel ODF file.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the " fixes [ openoffice.org ] " is that it will convert text cells to numbers in formulae if it can .
This is one of the major differences from Excel that led Microsoft to move all their formulae into a different namespace , in order to prevent users from seeing behavioural inconsistencies across products .
That 's the way they put it , The Internet described it as deliberately breaking interoperability .
I 'm agnostic on that distinction , but OOo is now in line with just about every other spreadsheet in existence including Excel , Gnumeric , and Google Docs in this respect .
It will be interesting to see what happens to the msoxl namespace when this comes out .
I do n't know if 3.2 will convert the msoxl namespace formuale to the default namespace when it opens an Excel ODF file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the "fixes [openoffice.org]" is that it will convert text cells to numbers in formulae if it can.
This is one of the major differences from Excel that led Microsoft to move all their formulae into a different namespace, in order to prevent users from seeing behavioural inconsistencies across products.
That's the way they put it, The Internet described it as deliberately breaking interoperability.
I'm agnostic on that distinction, but OOo is now in line with just about every other spreadsheet in existence including Excel, Gnumeric, and Google Docs in this respect.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the msoxl namespace when this comes out.
I don't know if 3.2 will convert the msoxl namespace formuale to the default namespace when it opens an Excel ODF file.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810369</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Minwee</author>
	<datestamp>1256061180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Screens are not very tall, but quite wide these days, on average.</p></div></blockquote><p>If this really bothers you, you can always turn your screen sideways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screens are not very tall , but quite wide these days , on average.If this really bothers you , you can always turn your screen sideways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screens are not very tall, but quite wide these days, on average.If this really bothers you, you can always turn your screen sideways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811109</id>
	<title>Re:More easier?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1256063760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're assuming it has a browser or HTML editor built in? It's not Emacs, you know! At least not *yet*. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're assuming it has a browser or HTML editor built in ?
It 's not Emacs , you know !
At least not * yet * .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're assuming it has a browser or HTML editor built in?
It's not Emacs, you know!
At least not *yet*.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815501</id>
	<title>Re:Why no online version of OpenOffice?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256036880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a google docs plugin for openoffice that works nicely with word processor and spread sheet documents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a google docs plugin for openoffice that works nicely with word processor and spread sheet documents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a google docs plugin for openoffice that works nicely with word processor and spread sheet documents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809411</id>
	<title>Now if...</title>
	<author>MonsterTrimble</author>
	<datestamp>1256058120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now if this version is 30\% faster on my Kubuntu box <b>AND AND AND</b> has the List function that Excel 2003 has (instead of the g*****n f***ing POS filter function), I will officially never return to MS Office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if this version is 30 \ % faster on my Kubuntu box AND AND AND has the List function that Excel 2003 has ( instead of the g * * * * * n f * * * ing POS filter function ) , I will officially never return to MS Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if this version is 30\% faster on my Kubuntu box AND AND AND has the List function that Excel 2003 has (instead of the g*****n f***ing POS filter function), I will officially never return to MS Office.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809505</id>
	<title>Re:Import of password protected Microsoft Office X</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1256058360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Yay! I think people were beginning to dislike me a little when I'd ask them to convert and resend an attachment that I couldn't open. Looks like I'll have to hunt around for some other subtle way to annoy my co-workers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</i>"<br> <br>
Why not point them to where they can <a href="http://download.openoffice.org/" title="openoffice.org">download</a> [openoffice.org] Open Office?<br> <br>

'Import of password protected Microsoft Office XML documents <a href="http://www.mail-archive.com/allfeatures@openoffice.org/msg00703.html" title="mail-archive.com">has been implemented</a> [mail-archive.com] in CWS dr72'</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Yay !
I think people were beginning to dislike me a little when I 'd ask them to convert and resend an attachment that I could n't open .
Looks like I 'll have to hunt around for some other subtle way to annoy my co-workers : ) " Why not point them to where they can download [ openoffice.org ] Open Office ?
'Import of password protected Microsoft Office XML documents has been implemented [ mail-archive.com ] in CWS dr72'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Yay!
I think people were beginning to dislike me a little when I'd ask them to convert and resend an attachment that I couldn't open.
Looks like I'll have to hunt around for some other subtle way to annoy my co-workers :)" 
Why not point them to where they can download [openoffice.org] Open Office?
'Import of password protected Microsoft Office XML documents has been implemented [mail-archive.com] in CWS dr72'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809159</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29816263</id>
	<title>Google Docs - Now with folder sharing!</title>
	<author>Wraithlyn</author>
	<datestamp>1256040960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google recently (1 week) added the ability to share entire folders in Google Docs.</p><p>This is HUGE, previously you had to "invite" people (or otherwise provide a link) to every single Doc individually.  This effectively made Google Docs useless as a centralized repository. (Believe me, we tried.  Closest we got to a working solution was an unholy crossbreed of Docs and Sites, but it was still overly cumbersome)</p><p>Now you can create a folder, share/invite people to it ONCE, and just drop stuff in it, including additional sub-folders.</p><p>Seriously, Google Docs just became a killer app with this addition.   Centralized, hierarchical, browser-editable, collaborative nirvana.  I'm sure there are many valid use cases for local storage (highly sensitive materials, etc), but for general stuff Docs is so superior now to the de facto sharing model of MS Office + shared drive(s) + email/version hell it's not even a contest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google recently ( 1 week ) added the ability to share entire folders in Google Docs.This is HUGE , previously you had to " invite " people ( or otherwise provide a link ) to every single Doc individually .
This effectively made Google Docs useless as a centralized repository .
( Believe me , we tried .
Closest we got to a working solution was an unholy crossbreed of Docs and Sites , but it was still overly cumbersome ) Now you can create a folder , share/invite people to it ONCE , and just drop stuff in it , including additional sub-folders.Seriously , Google Docs just became a killer app with this addition .
Centralized , hierarchical , browser-editable , collaborative nirvana .
I 'm sure there are many valid use cases for local storage ( highly sensitive materials , etc ) , but for general stuff Docs is so superior now to the de facto sharing model of MS Office + shared drive ( s ) + email/version hell it 's not even a contest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google recently (1 week) added the ability to share entire folders in Google Docs.This is HUGE, previously you had to "invite" people (or otherwise provide a link) to every single Doc individually.
This effectively made Google Docs useless as a centralized repository.
(Believe me, we tried.
Closest we got to a working solution was an unholy crossbreed of Docs and Sites, but it was still overly cumbersome)Now you can create a folder, share/invite people to it ONCE, and just drop stuff in it, including additional sub-folders.Seriously, Google Docs just became a killer app with this addition.
Centralized, hierarchical, browser-editable, collaborative nirvana.
I'm sure there are many valid use cases for local storage (highly sensitive materials, etc), but for general stuff Docs is so superior now to the de facto sharing model of MS Office + shared drive(s) + email/version hell it's not even a contest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810141</id>
	<title>Re:Why no online version of OpenOffice?</title>
	<author>houstonbofh</author>
	<datestamp>1256060460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are a few problems here...<br> <br>
The first is that online and off line are coded totally differently, so the OO team would be starting from scratch in an already established market.<br> <br>
The second is availability.  Just because it is on the Internet doesn't mean it always will be.  Just ask some of the people caught in the Sidekick, T-mobile, Danger, Microsoft data loss.<br> <br>
And of course there is trust.  Do you trust Google to never "search" your data?  They have voice-mails on-line now...  And Microsoft can be trusted, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a few problems here.. . The first is that online and off line are coded totally differently , so the OO team would be starting from scratch in an already established market .
The second is availability .
Just because it is on the Internet does n't mean it always will be .
Just ask some of the people caught in the Sidekick , T-mobile , Danger , Microsoft data loss .
And of course there is trust .
Do you trust Google to never " search " your data ?
They have voice-mails on-line now... And Microsoft can be trusted , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a few problems here... 
The first is that online and off line are coded totally differently, so the OO team would be starting from scratch in an already established market.
The second is availability.
Just because it is on the Internet doesn't mean it always will be.
Just ask some of the people caught in the Sidekick, T-mobile, Danger, Microsoft data loss.
And of course there is trust.
Do you trust Google to never "search" your data?
They have voice-mails on-line now...  And Microsoft can be trusted, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814509</id>
	<title>Re:Why no online version of OpenOffice?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256032980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a pity you didn't have a backup of your documents on another device. The error was not using local storage but the lack of a backup and possibly a second copy of your most important docs on a USB stick or portable hard disk.</p><p>I am bemused by your trust in a 3rd party to store your documents. It's just as easy for a 3rd party to lose your data, go offline (temporarily or permanently), change their terms of service to start charging or charge more etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a pity you did n't have a backup of your documents on another device .
The error was not using local storage but the lack of a backup and possibly a second copy of your most important docs on a USB stick or portable hard disk.I am bemused by your trust in a 3rd party to store your documents .
It 's just as easy for a 3rd party to lose your data , go offline ( temporarily or permanently ) , change their terms of service to start charging or charge more etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a pity you didn't have a backup of your documents on another device.
The error was not using local storage but the lack of a backup and possibly a second copy of your most important docs on a USB stick or portable hard disk.I am bemused by your trust in a 3rd party to store your documents.
It's just as easy for a 3rd party to lose your data, go offline (temporarily or permanently), change their terms of service to start charging or charge more etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810689</id>
	<title>Yes, but it's much worse than just that</title>
	<author>Anonymous Brave Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1256062260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I completely agree, though I think it's a lot worse than you say.</p><p>Why do we insist on displaying information that is probably read more often on-screen than on-paper these days in an area that lends itself to printing on standardised paper sizes, and that was never very good for readability with the typical margin set-up even then? Basic text layout could be handled much better for on-screen use: see numerous discussions about layout for web pages. Supplementary content like charts, tables, diagrams, footnotes and citations/cross-references could be displayed in many more helpful ways, given the typical properties of a modern widescreen monitor, than the fixed, paper-based layouts typically available today. Again, even basic web pages are better at some of this stuff, and the layout and presentation tools in HTML/CSS are crude by professional design standards.</p><p>Why do we still present a bazillion hard-coded formatting options, when most possible combinations are only ever (a) ignored or (b) over-used with horrendous results? Pretty much everyone else, from serious publishers to people writing papers in LaTeX to those working on web content using HTML and CSS has been using structured, semantic mark-up with separate formatting rules since roughly forever.</p><p>Why do we still have all the emphasis on presentation anyway? Sure, formatting documents and laying out the information for good readability is important, but the content itself is also important. There are all kinds of things tools could do both to help streamline the editing process and to help authors to write better content. Sadly, the most help we get from typical word processors today is a spelling checker (in your country's variation of your native language if you're lucky), a grammar checker (which is wrong more often than it's right if you are a reasonably competent author writing in your native language), and simple metrics like word count and a few mostly-incomprehensible reading ease indicators.</p><p>And why are document review and process support tools, such as version labelling, adding comments and proposing edits, tracking changes, and recording approvals, all still in the Stone Age by computing standards? These are very important in a lot of business and other formal contexts, and form a major part of the way a lot of people work with digital documents. I shudder to think what the world economy loses just because of time wasted trying to pass basic feedback from one colleague to another while working on documents of mutual interest.</p><p>Clearly even niche markets in document editing have pretty vast potential, because it's one of the most common reasons many of us use computers and even if the media change, the need to communicate in more than 140 characters isn't going to die out any time soon. Moreover, some people do produce rather nice alternatives to heavyweight applications like MS Word and OpenOffice Writer, and there are various apparently successful small businesses (or groups within large businesses, in the case of companies like Apple) doing so. I don't understand why most of these seem to be confined to Apple systems, though, with few decent choices available for either Windows (where you'd think the dominant interest would lie from commercial developers) or the freebie platforms (with their legions of volunteers ready to contribute). There must be a killer business waiting to be born somewhere out there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree , though I think it 's a lot worse than you say.Why do we insist on displaying information that is probably read more often on-screen than on-paper these days in an area that lends itself to printing on standardised paper sizes , and that was never very good for readability with the typical margin set-up even then ?
Basic text layout could be handled much better for on-screen use : see numerous discussions about layout for web pages .
Supplementary content like charts , tables , diagrams , footnotes and citations/cross-references could be displayed in many more helpful ways , given the typical properties of a modern widescreen monitor , than the fixed , paper-based layouts typically available today .
Again , even basic web pages are better at some of this stuff , and the layout and presentation tools in HTML/CSS are crude by professional design standards.Why do we still present a bazillion hard-coded formatting options , when most possible combinations are only ever ( a ) ignored or ( b ) over-used with horrendous results ?
Pretty much everyone else , from serious publishers to people writing papers in LaTeX to those working on web content using HTML and CSS has been using structured , semantic mark-up with separate formatting rules since roughly forever.Why do we still have all the emphasis on presentation anyway ?
Sure , formatting documents and laying out the information for good readability is important , but the content itself is also important .
There are all kinds of things tools could do both to help streamline the editing process and to help authors to write better content .
Sadly , the most help we get from typical word processors today is a spelling checker ( in your country 's variation of your native language if you 're lucky ) , a grammar checker ( which is wrong more often than it 's right if you are a reasonably competent author writing in your native language ) , and simple metrics like word count and a few mostly-incomprehensible reading ease indicators.And why are document review and process support tools , such as version labelling , adding comments and proposing edits , tracking changes , and recording approvals , all still in the Stone Age by computing standards ?
These are very important in a lot of business and other formal contexts , and form a major part of the way a lot of people work with digital documents .
I shudder to think what the world economy loses just because of time wasted trying to pass basic feedback from one colleague to another while working on documents of mutual interest.Clearly even niche markets in document editing have pretty vast potential , because it 's one of the most common reasons many of us use computers and even if the media change , the need to communicate in more than 140 characters is n't going to die out any time soon .
Moreover , some people do produce rather nice alternatives to heavyweight applications like MS Word and OpenOffice Writer , and there are various apparently successful small businesses ( or groups within large businesses , in the case of companies like Apple ) doing so .
I do n't understand why most of these seem to be confined to Apple systems , though , with few decent choices available for either Windows ( where you 'd think the dominant interest would lie from commercial developers ) or the freebie platforms ( with their legions of volunteers ready to contribute ) .
There must be a killer business waiting to be born somewhere out there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree, though I think it's a lot worse than you say.Why do we insist on displaying information that is probably read more often on-screen than on-paper these days in an area that lends itself to printing on standardised paper sizes, and that was never very good for readability with the typical margin set-up even then?
Basic text layout could be handled much better for on-screen use: see numerous discussions about layout for web pages.
Supplementary content like charts, tables, diagrams, footnotes and citations/cross-references could be displayed in many more helpful ways, given the typical properties of a modern widescreen monitor, than the fixed, paper-based layouts typically available today.
Again, even basic web pages are better at some of this stuff, and the layout and presentation tools in HTML/CSS are crude by professional design standards.Why do we still present a bazillion hard-coded formatting options, when most possible combinations are only ever (a) ignored or (b) over-used with horrendous results?
Pretty much everyone else, from serious publishers to people writing papers in LaTeX to those working on web content using HTML and CSS has been using structured, semantic mark-up with separate formatting rules since roughly forever.Why do we still have all the emphasis on presentation anyway?
Sure, formatting documents and laying out the information for good readability is important, but the content itself is also important.
There are all kinds of things tools could do both to help streamline the editing process and to help authors to write better content.
Sadly, the most help we get from typical word processors today is a spelling checker (in your country's variation of your native language if you're lucky), a grammar checker (which is wrong more often than it's right if you are a reasonably competent author writing in your native language), and simple metrics like word count and a few mostly-incomprehensible reading ease indicators.And why are document review and process support tools, such as version labelling, adding comments and proposing edits, tracking changes, and recording approvals, all still in the Stone Age by computing standards?
These are very important in a lot of business and other formal contexts, and form a major part of the way a lot of people work with digital documents.
I shudder to think what the world economy loses just because of time wasted trying to pass basic feedback from one colleague to another while working on documents of mutual interest.Clearly even niche markets in document editing have pretty vast potential, because it's one of the most common reasons many of us use computers and even if the media change, the need to communicate in more than 140 characters isn't going to die out any time soon.
Moreover, some people do produce rather nice alternatives to heavyweight applications like MS Word and OpenOffice Writer, and there are various apparently successful small businesses (or groups within large businesses, in the case of companies like Apple) doing so.
I don't understand why most of these seem to be confined to Apple systems, though, with few decent choices available for either Windows (where you'd think the dominant interest would lie from commercial developers) or the freebie platforms (with their legions of volunteers ready to contribute).
There must be a killer business waiting to be born somewhere out there...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814667</id>
	<title>Re:Faster...</title>
	<author>mopslik</author>
	<datestamp>1256033520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, I used to think it was solely an OpenOffice.org issue, and while the application certainly could be snappier and less bloated in some areas, I don't think it's nearly as bad as people make it out to be.</p><p>As the only Computer Science teacher at my high school, I often inherit lots of older hardware. The other day our local technician gave me three old Celeron 600MHz laptops that he was just going to throw in the trash. I decided to turn them into workstations for my students who did not have easy access to computers at home. As they were slow machines, I set them up with a basic Ubuntu install running IceWM -- it runs quite snappy, and is a bit more user-friendly than say DSL.</p><p>I considered installing AbiWord for a word processor, but chose OO.o mainly because we have it installed on the school servers anyway. The result? It takes about 6-7 seconds to load up, and responds quite well. As a point of comparison, the 2GHz Pentium 4 machines running XP and Word in our department office launch Word in approximately 5-6 seconds, so it's pretty much on par.</p><p>I know that OO.o is a beast sometimes, but my experiences have been fairly positive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I used to think it was solely an OpenOffice.org issue , and while the application certainly could be snappier and less bloated in some areas , I do n't think it 's nearly as bad as people make it out to be.As the only Computer Science teacher at my high school , I often inherit lots of older hardware .
The other day our local technician gave me three old Celeron 600MHz laptops that he was just going to throw in the trash .
I decided to turn them into workstations for my students who did not have easy access to computers at home .
As they were slow machines , I set them up with a basic Ubuntu install running IceWM -- it runs quite snappy , and is a bit more user-friendly than say DSL.I considered installing AbiWord for a word processor , but chose OO.o mainly because we have it installed on the school servers anyway .
The result ?
It takes about 6-7 seconds to load up , and responds quite well .
As a point of comparison , the 2GHz Pentium 4 machines running XP and Word in our department office launch Word in approximately 5-6 seconds , so it 's pretty much on par.I know that OO.o is a beast sometimes , but my experiences have been fairly positive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I used to think it was solely an OpenOffice.org issue, and while the application certainly could be snappier and less bloated in some areas, I don't think it's nearly as bad as people make it out to be.As the only Computer Science teacher at my high school, I often inherit lots of older hardware.
The other day our local technician gave me three old Celeron 600MHz laptops that he was just going to throw in the trash.
I decided to turn them into workstations for my students who did not have easy access to computers at home.
As they were slow machines, I set them up with a basic Ubuntu install running IceWM -- it runs quite snappy, and is a bit more user-friendly than say DSL.I considered installing AbiWord for a word processor, but chose OO.o mainly because we have it installed on the school servers anyway.
The result?
It takes about 6-7 seconds to load up, and responds quite well.
As a point of comparison, the 2GHz Pentium 4 machines running XP and Word in our department office launch Word in approximately 5-6 seconds, so it's pretty much on par.I know that OO.o is a beast sometimes, but my experiences have been fairly positive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809233</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810845</id>
	<title>Re:Why no online version of OpenOffice?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256062920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; They have voice-mails on-line now...</p><p>Only ones whose owners put them there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; They have voice-mails on-line now...Only ones whose owners put them there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; They have voice-mails on-line now...Only ones whose owners put them there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810541</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256061720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OpenOffice, like Word and everything else I can think of, gets<br>one fundamental thing wrong in the user interface design.</p><p>Documents are 8 1/2" wide x 11" tall with say 6.5" x 9" tall<br>useable writing area.</p><p>Screens are not very tall, but quite wide these days, on average.</p><p>Therefore, all (yes, ALL!) of the available vertical space in the application<br>window should be devoted to displaying the document.<br>There is plenty of room for controls to the side, or perhaps sliding down<br>from the top on demand. A one-line control bar at the top might be<br>justified for inherently horizontal things like font and style names, but<br>that's it.</p><p>As it is, we are editing our documents through the letter slot in the door.</p><p>Maybe that will be version 4.0</p></div><p>Modern computer screens are high-enough resolution to display an entire page in the available vertical space and have it easily readable. Screens are now so wide that you can display two complete pages side-by-side comfortably.</p><p>Maybe it's time to buy a new computer screen.</p><p>As well, you know you CAN move the menu bars around? If it really bothers you that much, then move them yourself. However, most other applications put the tools and menus at the top.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenOffice , like Word and everything else I can think of , getsone fundamental thing wrong in the user interface design.Documents are 8 1/2 " wide x 11 " tall with say 6.5 " x 9 " talluseable writing area.Screens are not very tall , but quite wide these days , on average.Therefore , all ( yes , ALL !
) of the available vertical space in the applicationwindow should be devoted to displaying the document.There is plenty of room for controls to the side , or perhaps sliding downfrom the top on demand .
A one-line control bar at the top might bejustified for inherently horizontal things like font and style names , butthat 's it.As it is , we are editing our documents through the letter slot in the door.Maybe that will be version 4.0Modern computer screens are high-enough resolution to display an entire page in the available vertical space and have it easily readable .
Screens are now so wide that you can display two complete pages side-by-side comfortably.Maybe it 's time to buy a new computer screen.As well , you know you CAN move the menu bars around ?
If it really bothers you that much , then move them yourself .
However , most other applications put the tools and menus at the top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenOffice, like Word and everything else I can think of, getsone fundamental thing wrong in the user interface design.Documents are 8 1/2" wide x 11" tall with say 6.5" x 9" talluseable writing area.Screens are not very tall, but quite wide these days, on average.Therefore, all (yes, ALL!
) of the available vertical space in the applicationwindow should be devoted to displaying the document.There is plenty of room for controls to the side, or perhaps sliding downfrom the top on demand.
A one-line control bar at the top might bejustified for inherently horizontal things like font and style names, butthat's it.As it is, we are editing our documents through the letter slot in the door.Maybe that will be version 4.0Modern computer screens are high-enough resolution to display an entire page in the available vertical space and have it easily readable.
Screens are now so wide that you can display two complete pages side-by-side comfortably.Maybe it's time to buy a new computer screen.As well, you know you CAN move the menu bars around?
If it really bothers you that much, then move them yourself.
However, most other applications put the tools and menus at the top.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29817761</id>
	<title>my biggest peeve</title>
	<author>belmolis</author>
	<datestamp>1256048700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It looks like they haven't fixed my biggest peeve, namely the refusal the default to the current directory when opening files. When I start up OO in a certain directory, create a document, and save, the overwhelming majority of the time I want to save the new document in the current directory. The same if I open an existing document: I want to look for it by default in the current directory. Instead, in both cases OO defaults to whatever directory it was last in, or the Desktop if it doesn't havdon't impose it on the rest of us. e a directory saved. I understand that this is the behavior that MS Windows users expect, but it is not what Unix users expect, and in my opinion, it is much inferior to the Unix approach. It makes sense to provide the option of MS Windows-type behavior for people switching from MS Windows, but the absence of Unix behavior on Unix systems is really unfortunate. Many of us use Unix because we prefer it, not simply to save money or avoid unfree software. Imposing MS Windows approaches as a lowest common denominator in order to spread FLOSS is not a good idea.
</p><p>
Somewhat less irritating is the fact that when I do want to open a file in a non-default directory, I have to browse using a slow GUI. I'd love to have the option of something that worked like a UNIX shell, in which I could <i>cd</i> and <i>ls</i>.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like they have n't fixed my biggest peeve , namely the refusal the default to the current directory when opening files .
When I start up OO in a certain directory , create a document , and save , the overwhelming majority of the time I want to save the new document in the current directory .
The same if I open an existing document : I want to look for it by default in the current directory .
Instead , in both cases OO defaults to whatever directory it was last in , or the Desktop if it does n't havdo n't impose it on the rest of us .
e a directory saved .
I understand that this is the behavior that MS Windows users expect , but it is not what Unix users expect , and in my opinion , it is much inferior to the Unix approach .
It makes sense to provide the option of MS Windows-type behavior for people switching from MS Windows , but the absence of Unix behavior on Unix systems is really unfortunate .
Many of us use Unix because we prefer it , not simply to save money or avoid unfree software .
Imposing MS Windows approaches as a lowest common denominator in order to spread FLOSS is not a good idea .
Somewhat less irritating is the fact that when I do want to open a file in a non-default directory , I have to browse using a slow GUI .
I 'd love to have the option of something that worked like a UNIX shell , in which I could cd and ls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It looks like they haven't fixed my biggest peeve, namely the refusal the default to the current directory when opening files.
When I start up OO in a certain directory, create a document, and save, the overwhelming majority of the time I want to save the new document in the current directory.
The same if I open an existing document: I want to look for it by default in the current directory.
Instead, in both cases OO defaults to whatever directory it was last in, or the Desktop if it doesn't havdon't impose it on the rest of us.
e a directory saved.
I understand that this is the behavior that MS Windows users expect, but it is not what Unix users expect, and in my opinion, it is much inferior to the Unix approach.
It makes sense to provide the option of MS Windows-type behavior for people switching from MS Windows, but the absence of Unix behavior on Unix systems is really unfortunate.
Many of us use Unix because we prefer it, not simply to save money or avoid unfree software.
Imposing MS Windows approaches as a lowest common denominator in order to spread FLOSS is not a good idea.
Somewhat less irritating is the fact that when I do want to open a file in a non-default directory, I have to browse using a slow GUI.
I'd love to have the option of something that worked like a UNIX shell, in which I could cd and ls.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815097</id>
	<title>Re:Pass minimum</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe the parent was modded up. There's no security in allowing the user to choose 1 char passwords. The reason for a 5 char minimum password is to get any security at all. We are not in the '80 anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe the parent was modded up .
There 's no security in allowing the user to choose 1 char passwords .
The reason for a 5 char minimum password is to get any security at all .
We are not in the '80 anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe the parent was modded up.
There's no security in allowing the user to choose 1 char passwords.
The reason for a 5 char minimum password is to get any security at all.
We are not in the '80 anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809359</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809233</id>
	<title>Re:Faster...</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1256057580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, honestly, this is the #1 thing that has kept me from using OpenOffice day-to-day.  The first thing I did when I opened this article was to have my browser search for the word "faster".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , honestly , this is the # 1 thing that has kept me from using OpenOffice day-to-day .
The first thing I did when I opened this article was to have my browser search for the word " faster " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, honestly, this is the #1 thing that has kept me from using OpenOffice day-to-day.
The first thing I did when I opened this article was to have my browser search for the word "faster".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809569</id>
	<title>Vote for the bugs that drive you nuts</title>
	<author>denis-The-menace</author>
	<datestamp>1256058540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here are some of my pet peeves:</p><p>Need Comment/UnComment button in Macro Editor<br><a href="http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show\_bug.cgi?id=87296" title="openoffice.org">http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show\_bug.cgi?id=87296</a> [openoffice.org]</p><p>Generated HTML changes default spacing<br><a href="http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show\_bug.cgi?id=14600" title="openoffice.org">http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show\_bug.cgi?id=14600</a> [openoffice.org]</p><p>Outline View (aka MS Word)<br><a href="http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show\_bug.cgi?id=3959" title="openoffice.org">http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show\_bug.cgi?id=3959</a> [openoffice.org]</p><p>(Vote for mine and I'll vote for yours if I can!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are some of my pet peeves : Need Comment/UnComment button in Macro Editorhttp : //qa.openoffice.org/issues/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 87296 [ openoffice.org ] Generated HTML changes default spacinghttp : //qa.openoffice.org/issues/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 14600 [ openoffice.org ] Outline View ( aka MS Word ) http : //qa.openoffice.org/issues/show \ _bug.cgi ? id = 3959 [ openoffice.org ] ( Vote for mine and I 'll vote for yours if I can !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are some of my pet peeves:Need Comment/UnComment button in Macro Editorhttp://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show\_bug.cgi?id=87296 [openoffice.org]Generated HTML changes default spacinghttp://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show\_bug.cgi?id=14600 [openoffice.org]Outline View (aka MS Word)http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show\_bug.cgi?id=3959 [openoffice.org](Vote for mine and I'll vote for yours if I can!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815349</id>
	<title>Is this fixed yet?</title>
	<author>kanazir</author>
	<datestamp>1256036160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?p=341113" title="oooforum.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?p=341113</a> [oooforum.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml ? p = 341113 [ oooforum.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?p=341113 [oooforum.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812893</id>
	<title>Re:Vote for the bugs that drive you nuts</title>
	<author>denis-The-menace</author>
	<datestamp>1256070120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know.<br>It's basic shit for a Code editor.</p><p>Also:<br>-There is no indent/un-indent button</p><p>-The debugger gives you a button to unwatch variables but no obvious way to add variables to watch. you can't right-click on variables to "watch" them during debug.</p><p>-If the macro throws a dialog box, you can't stop the macro. You must deal with the dialog box first.</p><p>I could go on but hey, it's free, I don't get corruption on the fly like I did with MS word and OOo gets better with time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know.It 's basic shit for a Code editor.Also : -There is no indent/un-indent button-The debugger gives you a button to unwatch variables but no obvious way to add variables to watch .
you ca n't right-click on variables to " watch " them during debug.-If the macro throws a dialog box , you ca n't stop the macro .
You must deal with the dialog box first.I could go on but hey , it 's free , I do n't get corruption on the fly like I did with MS word and OOo gets better with time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know.It's basic shit for a Code editor.Also:-There is no indent/un-indent button-The debugger gives you a button to unwatch variables but no obvious way to add variables to watch.
you can't right-click on variables to "watch" them during debug.-If the macro throws a dialog box, you can't stop the macro.
You must deal with the dialog box first.I could go on but hey, it's free, I don't get corruption on the fly like I did with MS word and OOo gets better with time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811371</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29822127</id>
	<title>What took you so long?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256133120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe they waited until 3.2 to add the ability to even read OpenType fonts.</p><p>OTF is the most standard, universal font format out there. Except for OpenOffice, every single program on Linux, Windows, and Macintosh with a font selection dialog can read OpenType fonts.</p><p>What took you so fucking long? Do you have no fucking sense of priority? It's fucking inexcusable that the biggest office suite on Linux will only gain the ability to read standard fonts at the end of 2009.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe they waited until 3.2 to add the ability to even read OpenType fonts.OTF is the most standard , universal font format out there .
Except for OpenOffice , every single program on Linux , Windows , and Macintosh with a font selection dialog can read OpenType fonts.What took you so fucking long ?
Do you have no fucking sense of priority ?
It 's fucking inexcusable that the biggest office suite on Linux will only gain the ability to read standard fonts at the end of 2009 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe they waited until 3.2 to add the ability to even read OpenType fonts.OTF is the most standard, universal font format out there.
Except for OpenOffice, every single program on Linux, Windows, and Macintosh with a font selection dialog can read OpenType fonts.What took you so fucking long?
Do you have no fucking sense of priority?
It's fucking inexcusable that the biggest office suite on Linux will only gain the ability to read standard fonts at the end of 2009.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811831</id>
	<title>Meh</title>
	<author>neurovish</author>
	<datestamp>1256066160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I stopped using open office when it started to try competing with every useless feature that is in MS Office.  The exact point was when oowriter was suddenly trying to think for me and automatically correcting spelling, capitalization, grammar, and formatting.  I went back to using AbiWord instead and wondered why I ever stopped.  It does everything you will need to do and is still not even 10MB.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I stopped using open office when it started to try competing with every useless feature that is in MS Office .
The exact point was when oowriter was suddenly trying to think for me and automatically correcting spelling , capitalization , grammar , and formatting .
I went back to using AbiWord instead and wondered why I ever stopped .
It does everything you will need to do and is still not even 10MB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I stopped using open office when it started to try competing with every useless feature that is in MS Office.
The exact point was when oowriter was suddenly trying to think for me and automatically correcting spelling, capitalization, grammar, and formatting.
I went back to using AbiWord instead and wondered why I ever stopped.
It does everything you will need to do and is still not even 10MB.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29822493</id>
	<title>Re:Does anyone else have Office software in genera</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256135280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I do. I only have office software installed because I need to read documents my co-workers send me.</p><p>Whenever I create something by myself, I use XeTeX exclusively and send people PDFs made from my XeTeX sources.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I do .
I only have office software installed because I need to read documents my co-workers send me.Whenever I create something by myself , I use XeTeX exclusively and send people PDFs made from my XeTeX sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I do.
I only have office software installed because I need to read documents my co-workers send me.Whenever I create something by myself, I use XeTeX exclusively and send people PDFs made from my XeTeX sources.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815629</id>
	<title>Font rendering now works?</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256037660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Font rendering now works on OO 3.2? As example, he is <b>unable</b> to render Verdana correctly (lots of kerning and spacing errors) and many others TrueType fonts. And for note, the exactly same Linux box (Slackware 12.2) can draw perfectly the Verdana on KDE 3.5 and GTK2 applications</htmltext>
<tokenext>Font rendering now works on OO 3.2 ?
As example , he is unable to render Verdana correctly ( lots of kerning and spacing errors ) and many others TrueType fonts .
And for note , the exactly same Linux box ( Slackware 12.2 ) can draw perfectly the Verdana on KDE 3.5 and GTK2 applications</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Font rendering now works on OO 3.2?
As example, he is unable to render Verdana correctly (lots of kerning and spacing errors) and many others TrueType fonts.
And for note, the exactly same Linux box (Slackware 12.2) can draw perfectly the Verdana on KDE 3.5 and GTK2 applications</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815409</id>
	<title>Does anyone else have Office software in general?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1256036400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spreadsheets are very useful, but documents and presentation programs seem bloated and useless compared to how they could be. A PDF works just fine as a finished document, and virtually all PDF readers have an option to view it as a presentation - slide transitions don't have any useful function, and they tend to detract from a slideshow's informational value. File formats like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.odt,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ppt get corrupted very easily, making them extremely difficult to recover (ascii text, as well as such text in a markup language, is virtually immune to corruption). There are simply so many efficient, stable, compatible open standards-based ways to make documents and presentations that programs like Microsoft Office and OO.o seem to be unnecessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spreadsheets are very useful , but documents and presentation programs seem bloated and useless compared to how they could be .
A PDF works just fine as a finished document , and virtually all PDF readers have an option to view it as a presentation - slide transitions do n't have any useful function , and they tend to detract from a slideshow 's informational value .
File formats like .odt , .doc and .ppt get corrupted very easily , making them extremely difficult to recover ( ascii text , as well as such text in a markup language , is virtually immune to corruption ) .
There are simply so many efficient , stable , compatible open standards-based ways to make documents and presentations that programs like Microsoft Office and OO.o seem to be unnecessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spreadsheets are very useful, but documents and presentation programs seem bloated and useless compared to how they could be.
A PDF works just fine as a finished document, and virtually all PDF readers have an option to view it as a presentation - slide transitions don't have any useful function, and they tend to detract from a slideshow's informational value.
File formats like .odt, .doc and .ppt get corrupted very easily, making them extremely difficult to recover (ascii text, as well as such text in a markup language, is virtually immune to corruption).
There are simply so many efficient, stable, compatible open standards-based ways to make documents and presentations that programs like Microsoft Office and OO.o seem to be unnecessary.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29822197</id>
	<title>Re:Full text</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256133540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Support for PS-OpenType fonts :</p><p>Another cool thing in OpenOffice.org 3.2 is supporting PS-OpenType fonts. Postscript based OpenType fonts are now supported (for formatting, printing, PDF-export and display)."</p><p>PS-OpenType has been the universal standard font format for years. Many foundries, including Adobe, do not release fonts in any other format. Every other program and system on Linux supports it (KDE, GNOME, Opera, Firefox, TeX, and plenty of others). Windows and Mac OS X support it in their native toolkits. Everything in the world supports it except OOo.</p><p>The fact that the OOo devs have absolutely no fucking sense of priority and waited this fucking long to add support for standard fonts shows that the developers are irresponsible and not to be trusted with doing anything important.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Support for PS-OpenType fonts : Another cool thing in OpenOffice.org 3.2 is supporting PS-OpenType fonts .
Postscript based OpenType fonts are now supported ( for formatting , printing , PDF-export and display ) .
" PS-OpenType has been the universal standard font format for years .
Many foundries , including Adobe , do not release fonts in any other format .
Every other program and system on Linux supports it ( KDE , GNOME , Opera , Firefox , TeX , and plenty of others ) .
Windows and Mac OS X support it in their native toolkits .
Everything in the world supports it except OOo.The fact that the OOo devs have absolutely no fucking sense of priority and waited this fucking long to add support for standard fonts shows that the developers are irresponsible and not to be trusted with doing anything important .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Support for PS-OpenType fonts :Another cool thing in OpenOffice.org 3.2 is supporting PS-OpenType fonts.
Postscript based OpenType fonts are now supported (for formatting, printing, PDF-export and display).
"PS-OpenType has been the universal standard font format for years.
Many foundries, including Adobe, do not release fonts in any other format.
Every other program and system on Linux supports it (KDE, GNOME, Opera, Firefox, TeX, and plenty of others).
Windows and Mac OS X support it in their native toolkits.
Everything in the world supports it except OOo.The fact that the OOo devs have absolutely no fucking sense of priority and waited this fucking long to add support for standard fonts shows that the developers are irresponsible and not to be trusted with doing anything important.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809479</id>
	<title>The price of a socket.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1256058300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I -really- like the ribbon bar in Office 2007 so it will be hard to part with it.</p><p>But,</p><p>1) I'm still so happy that Linux booted up after I transplanted the hard drive from an old opteron into a new xeon with a completely different motherboard, that I'm thinking I can live with Open Office for now.<br>2) There's still an empty socket for another xeon on my new motherboard.<br>3) Windows 7, Visual Studio, all start to pile up in terms of costs, or, I could get another xeon, or upgrade my xeons, get more ram...</p><p>The hardware argument is pretty compelling...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I -really- like the ribbon bar in Office 2007 so it will be hard to part with it.But,1 ) I 'm still so happy that Linux booted up after I transplanted the hard drive from an old opteron into a new xeon with a completely different motherboard , that I 'm thinking I can live with Open Office for now.2 ) There 's still an empty socket for another xeon on my new motherboard.3 ) Windows 7 , Visual Studio , all start to pile up in terms of costs , or , I could get another xeon , or upgrade my xeons , get more ram...The hardware argument is pretty compelling.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I -really- like the ribbon bar in Office 2007 so it will be hard to part with it.But,1) I'm still so happy that Linux booted up after I transplanted the hard drive from an old opteron into a new xeon with a completely different motherboard, that I'm thinking I can live with Open Office for now.2) There's still an empty socket for another xeon on my new motherboard.3) Windows 7, Visual Studio, all start to pile up in terms of costs, or, I could get another xeon, or upgrade my xeons, get more ram...The hardware argument is pretty compelling...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29818481</id>
	<title>A matter of choice</title>
	<author>Storchei</author>
	<datestamp>1256053080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the problem is a matter of choice, such as Linux vs M$.
I've been using OO since version 0.9 at least. For me it's A GREAT software!! Of course it has its bad points, perfection is not possible. In my case those bad points are not a problem.
OpenOffice is, in my opinion, an excellent Office Suite, which is VERY user friendly, free of charge, compatible with other Office Suites (of course some things are not fully compatible, but the percent of compatibility is REALLY GOOD!)
You may say it's not like M$ Word; of course it's not, but if you need M$ Word then buy its license and use it. You should use the software you feel comfortable with, and assume the responsibilities of your choice. I'm SICK of people's comments saying OO is not good, OO is not compatible, OO startup is slow, OO is not like M$ Word; but at the moment of using M$ Word they crack it or they curse because it has compatibility problems.

My advice is USE THE OFFICE SUITE YOU LIKE/WANT! (the one that makes you happy =D)
My personal suggestion is use OpenOffice because it's SIMPLY COOL!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is a matter of choice , such as Linux vs M $ .
I 've been using OO since version 0.9 at least .
For me it 's A GREAT software ! !
Of course it has its bad points , perfection is not possible .
In my case those bad points are not a problem .
OpenOffice is , in my opinion , an excellent Office Suite , which is VERY user friendly , free of charge , compatible with other Office Suites ( of course some things are not fully compatible , but the percent of compatibility is REALLY GOOD !
) You may say it 's not like M $ Word ; of course it 's not , but if you need M $ Word then buy its license and use it .
You should use the software you feel comfortable with , and assume the responsibilities of your choice .
I 'm SICK of people 's comments saying OO is not good , OO is not compatible , OO startup is slow , OO is not like M $ Word ; but at the moment of using M $ Word they crack it or they curse because it has compatibility problems .
My advice is USE THE OFFICE SUITE YOU LIKE/WANT !
( the one that makes you happy = D ) My personal suggestion is use OpenOffice because it 's SIMPLY COOL !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is a matter of choice, such as Linux vs M$.
I've been using OO since version 0.9 at least.
For me it's A GREAT software!!
Of course it has its bad points, perfection is not possible.
In my case those bad points are not a problem.
OpenOffice is, in my opinion, an excellent Office Suite, which is VERY user friendly, free of charge, compatible with other Office Suites (of course some things are not fully compatible, but the percent of compatibility is REALLY GOOD!
)
You may say it's not like M$ Word; of course it's not, but if you need M$ Word then buy its license and use it.
You should use the software you feel comfortable with, and assume the responsibilities of your choice.
I'm SICK of people's comments saying OO is not good, OO is not compatible, OO startup is slow, OO is not like M$ Word; but at the moment of using M$ Word they crack it or they curse because it has compatibility problems.
My advice is USE THE OFFICE SUITE YOU LIKE/WANT!
(the one that makes you happy =D)
My personal suggestion is use OpenOffice because it's SIMPLY COOL!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810829</id>
	<title>Re:You insensitive, American clod</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1256062860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hey!!! In my country, documents are 210 &#215; 297 mm, you insensitive clod.</p></div><p>Pity the insensitive clod, do not hate him, for he will forever be making his lines of text too long for optimum readability and shall never know the joy of always being able to make the next smallest size of paper by folding a larger sheet in half, without changing the aspect ratio.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey ! ! !
In my country , documents are 210   297 mm , you insensitive clod.Pity the insensitive clod , do not hate him , for he will forever be making his lines of text too long for optimum readability and shall never know the joy of always being able to make the next smallest size of paper by folding a larger sheet in half , without changing the aspect ratio .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey!!!
In my country, documents are 210 × 297 mm, you insensitive clod.Pity the insensitive clod, do not hate him, for he will forever be making his lines of text too long for optimum readability and shall never know the joy of always being able to make the next smallest size of paper by folding a larger sheet in half, without changing the aspect ratio.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29823039</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>sanjosanjo</author>
	<datestamp>1256137980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On a related note - I get annoyed with my browser getting squeezed in this same manner with toolbars and the row of tabs in Firefox - especially when working on my laptop.  I put the tabs on the left side of the browser using extension "Tree Style Tab" to help recover some of the space.  And I find that I can rearrange the toolbars to comprise just two rows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>On a related note - I get annoyed with my browser getting squeezed in this same manner with toolbars and the row of tabs in Firefox - especially when working on my laptop .
I put the tabs on the left side of the browser using extension " Tree Style Tab " to help recover some of the space .
And I find that I can rearrange the toolbars to comprise just two rows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a related note - I get annoyed with my browser getting squeezed in this same manner with toolbars and the row of tabs in Firefox - especially when working on my laptop.
I put the tabs on the left side of the browser using extension "Tree Style Tab" to help recover some of the space.
And I find that I can rearrange the toolbars to comprise just two rows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809123</id>
	<title>More easier?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256057220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on the section headings from TFA, I gather that version 3.2 is more secure, faster, more international, and more easier.</p><p>Apparently a grammar checker isn't one of the 42 new features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on the section headings from TFA , I gather that version 3.2 is more secure , faster , more international , and more easier.Apparently a grammar checker is n't one of the 42 new features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on the section headings from TFA, I gather that version 3.2 is more secure, faster, more international, and more easier.Apparently a grammar checker isn't one of the 42 new features.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29820351</id>
	<title>Re:Programs all wrong UI design. Bold statement</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1256157660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First as others have pointed out most people use Metric A4.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Anyway there is a school of thought and research that human beings are creatures that are built to understand things on the horizontal.  This stems back to our cave man days where most of our food/enemies/friends/life was situated on the horizontal.  It is natural to scan left right, right left and see everything we need to see.  Our spacial awareness is not very good at up down.</p><p>We see this pattern all around us.  From several written languages to door handles on cars.  It's also why the screens we like are wide screen.  We simply like scanning for information on the horizon.  We train our cognitive recognition from a young age to see left right, right left.</p><p>So no it's probably more right than wrong that UI have menu's, ribbons, tabs what have you on the horizontal.  The average person is probably just better at understanding and utilizing a horizontal interface.</p><p>Is it a waste of space? Yes.  But is the space better used for usability? Probably.</p><p>Yes Yes, what about language X and it's up down metaphor.  What about elevator buttons on the up down.  Yes yes you can all find examples that seem to violate the statements above.  But it is hard to disagree that the majority of our informational awareness is on the level plain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First as others have pointed out most people use Metric A4 .
: ) Anyway there is a school of thought and research that human beings are creatures that are built to understand things on the horizontal .
This stems back to our cave man days where most of our food/enemies/friends/life was situated on the horizontal .
It is natural to scan left right , right left and see everything we need to see .
Our spacial awareness is not very good at up down.We see this pattern all around us .
From several written languages to door handles on cars .
It 's also why the screens we like are wide screen .
We simply like scanning for information on the horizon .
We train our cognitive recognition from a young age to see left right , right left.So no it 's probably more right than wrong that UI have menu 's , ribbons , tabs what have you on the horizontal .
The average person is probably just better at understanding and utilizing a horizontal interface.Is it a waste of space ?
Yes. But is the space better used for usability ?
Probably.Yes Yes , what about language X and it 's up down metaphor .
What about elevator buttons on the up down .
Yes yes you can all find examples that seem to violate the statements above .
But it is hard to disagree that the majority of our informational awareness is on the level plain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First as others have pointed out most people use Metric A4.
:)Anyway there is a school of thought and research that human beings are creatures that are built to understand things on the horizontal.
This stems back to our cave man days where most of our food/enemies/friends/life was situated on the horizontal.
It is natural to scan left right, right left and see everything we need to see.
Our spacial awareness is not very good at up down.We see this pattern all around us.
From several written languages to door handles on cars.
It's also why the screens we like are wide screen.
We simply like scanning for information on the horizon.
We train our cognitive recognition from a young age to see left right, right left.So no it's probably more right than wrong that UI have menu's, ribbons, tabs what have you on the horizontal.
The average person is probably just better at understanding and utilizing a horizontal interface.Is it a waste of space?
Yes.  But is the space better used for usability?
Probably.Yes Yes, what about language X and it's up down metaphor.
What about elevator buttons on the up down.
Yes yes you can all find examples that seem to violate the statements above.
But it is hard to disagree that the majority of our informational awareness is on the level plain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810109</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256060340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...Therefore, all (yes, ALL!) of the available vertical space in the application<br>window should be devoted to displaying the document.<br>There is plenty of room for controls to the side, or perhaps sliding down<br>from the top on demand. A one-line control bar at the top might be<br>justified for inherently horizontal things like font and style names, but<br>that's it.</p><p>As it is, we are editing our documents through the letter slot in the door.</p><p>Maybe that will be version 4.0</p></div><p>Running OpenOffice.org 3.1.1. The default toolbars can be docked to either side of the document window, or dragged off onto floating palettes. This leaves only the horizontal ruler above the document.</p><p>(One bug: If you have the toolbars as palettes, and you arrange two document windows side-by-side on your screen, the palettes will jump around whenever you switch from one window to the other.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...Therefore , all ( yes , ALL !
) of the available vertical space in the applicationwindow should be devoted to displaying the document.There is plenty of room for controls to the side , or perhaps sliding downfrom the top on demand .
A one-line control bar at the top might bejustified for inherently horizontal things like font and style names , butthat 's it.As it is , we are editing our documents through the letter slot in the door.Maybe that will be version 4.0Running OpenOffice.org 3.1.1 .
The default toolbars can be docked to either side of the document window , or dragged off onto floating palettes .
This leaves only the horizontal ruler above the document .
( One bug : If you have the toolbars as palettes , and you arrange two document windows side-by-side on your screen , the palettes will jump around whenever you switch from one window to the other .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...Therefore, all (yes, ALL!
) of the available vertical space in the applicationwindow should be devoted to displaying the document.There is plenty of room for controls to the side, or perhaps sliding downfrom the top on demand.
A one-line control bar at the top might bejustified for inherently horizontal things like font and style names, butthat's it.As it is, we are editing our documents through the letter slot in the door.Maybe that will be version 4.0Running OpenOffice.org 3.1.1.
The default toolbars can be docked to either side of the document window, or dragged off onto floating palettes.
This leaves only the horizontal ruler above the document.
(One bug: If you have the toolbars as palettes, and you arrange two document windows side-by-side on your screen, the palettes will jump around whenever you switch from one window to the other.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809445</id>
	<title>more easier is proper grammer :)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were using the preschool language mode.</p><p>However, the TFA is more slashdotteder at the moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were using the preschool language mode.However , the TFA is more slashdotteder at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were using the preschool language mode.However, the TFA is more slashdotteder at the moment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29813353</id>
	<title>Very funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256072340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You stay playing with your coloured tabs in Excel and the rest of us will get on with the work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You stay playing with your coloured tabs in Excel and the rest of us will get on with the work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You stay playing with your coloured tabs in Excel and the rest of us will get on with the work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809299</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810735</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1256062440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.  It's the screens that have it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
It 's the screens that have it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
It's the screens that have it wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</id>
	<title>Word processing programs all have wrong UI design</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1256059320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OpenOffice, like Word and everything else I can think of, gets<br>one fundamental thing wrong in the user interface design.</p><p>Documents are 8 1/2" wide x 11" tall with say 6.5" x 9" tall<br>useable writing area.</p><p>Screens are not very tall, but quite wide these days, on average.</p><p>Therefore, all (yes, ALL!) of the available vertical space in the application<br>window should be devoted to displaying the document.<br>There is plenty of room for controls to the side, or perhaps sliding down<br>from the top on demand. A one-line control bar at the top might be<br>justified for inherently horizontal things like font and style names, but<br>that's it.</p><p>As it is, we are editing our documents through the letter slot in the door.</p><p>Maybe that will be version 4.0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenOffice , like Word and everything else I can think of , getsone fundamental thing wrong in the user interface design.Documents are 8 1/2 " wide x 11 " tall with say 6.5 " x 9 " talluseable writing area.Screens are not very tall , but quite wide these days , on average.Therefore , all ( yes , ALL !
) of the available vertical space in the applicationwindow should be devoted to displaying the document.There is plenty of room for controls to the side , or perhaps sliding downfrom the top on demand .
A one-line control bar at the top might bejustified for inherently horizontal things like font and style names , butthat 's it.As it is , we are editing our documents through the letter slot in the door.Maybe that will be version 4.0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenOffice, like Word and everything else I can think of, getsone fundamental thing wrong in the user interface design.Documents are 8 1/2" wide x 11" tall with say 6.5" x 9" talluseable writing area.Screens are not very tall, but quite wide these days, on average.Therefore, all (yes, ALL!
) of the available vertical space in the applicationwindow should be devoted to displaying the document.There is plenty of room for controls to the side, or perhaps sliding downfrom the top on demand.
A one-line control bar at the top might bejustified for inherently horizontal things like font and style names, butthat's it.As it is, we are editing our documents through the letter slot in the door.Maybe that will be version 4.0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810381</id>
	<title>So much effort</title>
	<author>SCHecklerX</author>
	<datestamp>1256061180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... for things that likely shouldn't be used much anymore.</p><p>Just because everybody does 'database', mission-critical calculations, and pretty formatted page layout in spreadsheets doesn't make it right.  Just because people do form letters in word processors, doesn't make it right.  There are better tools.</p><p>It'd be nice if corporate cultures had fostered doing things a better way, and wordprocessors and spreadsheets remained in the realms of one-off papers/letters and what-if/preliminary design/research respectively.  Most features added in the last decade have been pretty useless for that type of use, which is really where the use of these tools should be focused.</p><p>Imagine if the effort put into adding those features had been focused on other projects and useful software that is currently lagging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... for things that likely should n't be used much anymore.Just because everybody does 'database ' , mission-critical calculations , and pretty formatted page layout in spreadsheets does n't make it right .
Just because people do form letters in word processors , does n't make it right .
There are better tools.It 'd be nice if corporate cultures had fostered doing things a better way , and wordprocessors and spreadsheets remained in the realms of one-off papers/letters and what-if/preliminary design/research respectively .
Most features added in the last decade have been pretty useless for that type of use , which is really where the use of these tools should be focused.Imagine if the effort put into adding those features had been focused on other projects and useful software that is currently lagging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... for things that likely shouldn't be used much anymore.Just because everybody does 'database', mission-critical calculations, and pretty formatted page layout in spreadsheets doesn't make it right.
Just because people do form letters in word processors, doesn't make it right.
There are better tools.It'd be nice if corporate cultures had fostered doing things a better way, and wordprocessors and spreadsheets remained in the realms of one-off papers/letters and what-if/preliminary design/research respectively.
Most features added in the last decade have been pretty useless for that type of use, which is really where the use of these tools should be focused.Imagine if the effort put into adding those features had been focused on other projects and useful software that is currently lagging.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810711</id>
	<title>Re:bloated-office</title>
	<author>SilverHatHacker</author>
	<datestamp>1256062380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You want bloat? I hear OO.o is available as an Emacs plugin now too...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want bloat ?
I hear OO.o is available as an Emacs plugin now too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want bloat?
I hear OO.o is available as an Emacs plugin now too...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809165</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811975</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>Gorgeus</author>
	<datestamp>1256066640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may want to try out Lotus Symphony. Pretty much of the options are at the side, and you can move stuff around. It's free and based on OpenOffice, so there is no reason not to try it out.

If you are really into typing, you might also want to get a screen with pivot function. I got to admit though that I hardly use my pivot function and that I expected more from it. It's just doesn't feel right for most applications, and you don't want to turn around your screen every few minutes. So, buying the next screen, I will not buy pivot, but bigger<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may want to try out Lotus Symphony .
Pretty much of the options are at the side , and you can move stuff around .
It 's free and based on OpenOffice , so there is no reason not to try it out .
If you are really into typing , you might also want to get a screen with pivot function .
I got to admit though that I hardly use my pivot function and that I expected more from it .
It 's just does n't feel right for most applications , and you do n't want to turn around your screen every few minutes .
So , buying the next screen , I will not buy pivot , but bigger ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may want to try out Lotus Symphony.
Pretty much of the options are at the side, and you can move stuff around.
It's free and based on OpenOffice, so there is no reason not to try it out.
If you are really into typing, you might also want to get a screen with pivot function.
I got to admit though that I hardly use my pivot function and that I expected more from it.
It's just doesn't feel right for most applications, and you don't want to turn around your screen every few minutes.
So, buying the next screen, I will not buy pivot, but bigger ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810043</id>
	<title>Re:Vote for the bugs that drive you nuts</title>
	<author>cellocgw</author>
	<datestamp>1256060160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK,<br>I believe mine is issue 3914 -- it's the desperate need for NormalView (or equivalent) in Write/Word.   Just as someone posted  that vertical space is at a  premium (which is why all 'ribbons' and toolbars should be moveable to a vertical array on the side of the screen), there is absolutely no reason to show page edges, headers, or footers while writing and editing the document.  Page layout tasks come  after the document has been edited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK,I believe mine is issue 3914 -- it 's the desperate need for NormalView ( or equivalent ) in Write/Word .
Just as someone posted that vertical space is at a premium ( which is why all 'ribbons ' and toolbars should be moveable to a vertical array on the side of the screen ) , there is absolutely no reason to show page edges , headers , or footers while writing and editing the document .
Page layout tasks come after the document has been edited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK,I believe mine is issue 3914 -- it's the desperate need for NormalView (or equivalent) in Write/Word.
Just as someone posted  that vertical space is at a  premium (which is why all 'ribbons' and toolbars should be moveable to a vertical array on the side of the screen), there is absolutely no reason to show page edges, headers, or footers while writing and editing the document.
Page layout tasks come  after the document has been edited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809515</id>
	<title>Full text</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1256058360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The site is slow and may be intermittent, so here's the text:<br>--snipsnip--</p><p>Home<br>A sneak preview of new OpenOffice 3.2 part 1</p><p>By FahadTue, 10/20/2009 - 17:20</p><p>The last developer milestone ( DEV300m60) of OpenOffice.org has been released. The next version of OpenOffice.org 3.2 has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements . The final version is expected to be available at the end of November 2009.Open Office 3.2<br>Many companies have contributed to this version like RedHat , RedFlag and IBM, making OpenOffice more stable and useful. I couldn't stop myself from seeing new features and enjoying them. So I downloaded DEV300m60 version. After playing with it for many days I could say that OpenOffice developers have done very good work in it. Well done !<br>I will review in this post some interesting features : more secure , faster , easier and more international.<br>more secure</p><p>Detect if non-encrypted streams are in encrypted document:</p><p>OOo expects that an encrypted document does not contain any non-encrypted streams starting from ODF1.2 version. The exceptions are the streams that are part of the ODF format: "mimetype", "META-INF/manifest.xml" and signature streams that follow the pattern "META-INF/*signatures*".</p><p>The manifest.xml is part of the document signature now:</p><p>In OpenOffice.org 3.2, the manifest.xml will be signed . This will introduce the limitation that macro signatures can't be introduced after the document was signed, because this would need manipulation of the (then) signed manifest.xml.</p><p>ODF document integrity check:</p><p>The document integrity check proves now whether the ODF document conforms the ODF specification. It mainly affects the ODF1.2 documents. If an inconsistency is found, the document is treated as a broken one, the office suggests to repair the document in this case. The macros are disabled in repaired documents.<br>Faster</p><p>Many issues have been fixed in order to make OpenOffice.org faster. The happy news that OpenOffice.org 3.2 is now faster than before in many aspects. The startup now 30\% faster in Windows. Many issues have been ironed out in Writer (6 issues) and Calc (10 issues) regarding loading and saving times.</p><p>Now I can see that OpenOffice is faster than before but still there are many things have to be done in speed side.<br>More easier</p><p>
      Default button in password dialog now is "OK"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:Default button in password dialog</p><p>Although it is a small change but it makes OpenOffice more usable . Now The OK button in the password dialog is the default button again<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p>Remove the password length limitation:</p><p>password length limitation" The current minimal password length limitation ( 5 characters ) is outdated and makes no sense any more. Thus the limitation is removed, although the password is not allowed to be empty. "</p><p>Import of password protected Microsoft Office XML documents:</p><p>This is a great feature. Many people asked me how we can open password protected docx/xlsx files. All document types are supported including: MS Word 2007 documents (*.docx, *.docm) - MS Word 2007 templates (*.dotx, *.dotm) - MS Excel 2007 documents (*.xlsx, *.xlsm) - MS Excel 2007 binary documents (*.xlsb) - MS Excel 2007 templates (*.xltx, *.xltm) - MS Powerpoint 2007 documents (*.pptx, *.pptm) - MS Powerpoint 2007 templates (*.potx, *.potm).</p><p>Encryption support for "Microsoft Word 97/2000/XP"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:</p><p>This new feature make saving password protected Microsoft Word document possible with Microsoft Office standard RC4 algorithm.</p><p>Keyboard shortcut configuration dialog now supports "ALT" modifier:</p><p>supports ALT modifierBefore OpenOffice.org 3.2, the dialog for configuring keyboard shortcuts never allowed to use the ALT-key. Now ALT as well as SHIFT-ALT, CTRL-ALT and SHIFT-CTRL-ALT modifiers can be used in the dialog.</p><p>Impress and Draw now support comments:</p><p>To support collaboration, it is now possible to add comments to a presentation or drawing</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The site is slow and may be intermittent , so here 's the text : --snipsnip--HomeA sneak preview of new OpenOffice 3.2 part 1By FahadTue , 10/20/2009 - 17 : 20The last developer milestone ( DEV300m60 ) of OpenOffice.org has been released .
The next version of OpenOffice.org 3.2 has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements .
The final version is expected to be available at the end of November 2009.Open Office 3.2Many companies have contributed to this version like RedHat , RedFlag and IBM , making OpenOffice more stable and useful .
I could n't stop myself from seeing new features and enjoying them .
So I downloaded DEV300m60 version .
After playing with it for many days I could say that OpenOffice developers have done very good work in it .
Well done ! I will review in this post some interesting features : more secure , faster , easier and more international.more secureDetect if non-encrypted streams are in encrypted document : OOo expects that an encrypted document does not contain any non-encrypted streams starting from ODF1.2 version .
The exceptions are the streams that are part of the ODF format : " mimetype " , " META-INF/manifest.xml " and signature streams that follow the pattern " META-INF/ * signatures * " .The manifest.xml is part of the document signature now : In OpenOffice.org 3.2 , the manifest.xml will be signed .
This will introduce the limitation that macro signatures ca n't be introduced after the document was signed , because this would need manipulation of the ( then ) signed manifest.xml.ODF document integrity check : The document integrity check proves now whether the ODF document conforms the ODF specification .
It mainly affects the ODF1.2 documents .
If an inconsistency is found , the document is treated as a broken one , the office suggests to repair the document in this case .
The macros are disabled in repaired documents.FasterMany issues have been fixed in order to make OpenOffice.org faster .
The happy news that OpenOffice.org 3.2 is now faster than before in many aspects .
The startup now 30 \ % faster in Windows .
Many issues have been ironed out in Writer ( 6 issues ) and Calc ( 10 issues ) regarding loading and saving times.Now I can see that OpenOffice is faster than before but still there are many things have to be done in speed side.More easier Default button in password dialog now is " OK " : Default button in password dialogAlthough it is a small change but it makes OpenOffice more usable .
Now The OK button in the password dialog is the default button again .Remove the password length limitation : password length limitation " The current minimal password length limitation ( 5 characters ) is outdated and makes no sense any more .
Thus the limitation is removed , although the password is not allowed to be empty .
" Import of password protected Microsoft Office XML documents : This is a great feature .
Many people asked me how we can open password protected docx/xlsx files .
All document types are supported including : MS Word 2007 documents ( * .docx , * .docm ) - MS Word 2007 templates ( * .dotx , * .dotm ) - MS Excel 2007 documents ( * .xlsx , * .xlsm ) - MS Excel 2007 binary documents ( * .xlsb ) - MS Excel 2007 templates ( * .xltx , * .xltm ) - MS Powerpoint 2007 documents ( * .pptx , * .pptm ) - MS Powerpoint 2007 templates ( * .potx , * .potm ) .Encryption support for " Microsoft Word 97/2000/XP " : This new feature make saving password protected Microsoft Word document possible with Microsoft Office standard RC4 algorithm.Keyboard shortcut configuration dialog now supports " ALT " modifier : supports ALT modifierBefore OpenOffice.org 3.2 , the dialog for configuring keyboard shortcuts never allowed to use the ALT-key .
Now ALT as well as SHIFT-ALT , CTRL-ALT and SHIFT-CTRL-ALT modifiers can be used in the dialog.Impress and Draw now support comments : To support collaboration , it is now possible to add comments to a presentation or drawing</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The site is slow and may be intermittent, so here's the text:--snipsnip--HomeA sneak preview of new OpenOffice 3.2 part 1By FahadTue, 10/20/2009 - 17:20The last developer milestone ( DEV300m60) of OpenOffice.org has been released.
The next version of OpenOffice.org 3.2 has more than 42 features and 167 enhancements .
The final version is expected to be available at the end of November 2009.Open Office 3.2Many companies have contributed to this version like RedHat , RedFlag and IBM, making OpenOffice more stable and useful.
I couldn't stop myself from seeing new features and enjoying them.
So I downloaded DEV300m60 version.
After playing with it for many days I could say that OpenOffice developers have done very good work in it.
Well done !I will review in this post some interesting features : more secure , faster , easier and more international.more secureDetect if non-encrypted streams are in encrypted document:OOo expects that an encrypted document does not contain any non-encrypted streams starting from ODF1.2 version.
The exceptions are the streams that are part of the ODF format: "mimetype", "META-INF/manifest.xml" and signature streams that follow the pattern "META-INF/*signatures*".The manifest.xml is part of the document signature now:In OpenOffice.org 3.2, the manifest.xml will be signed .
This will introduce the limitation that macro signatures can't be introduced after the document was signed, because this would need manipulation of the (then) signed manifest.xml.ODF document integrity check:The document integrity check proves now whether the ODF document conforms the ODF specification.
It mainly affects the ODF1.2 documents.
If an inconsistency is found, the document is treated as a broken one, the office suggests to repair the document in this case.
The macros are disabled in repaired documents.FasterMany issues have been fixed in order to make OpenOffice.org faster.
The happy news that OpenOffice.org 3.2 is now faster than before in many aspects.
The startup now 30\% faster in Windows.
Many issues have been ironed out in Writer (6 issues) and Calc (10 issues) regarding loading and saving times.Now I can see that OpenOffice is faster than before but still there are many things have to be done in speed side.More easier
      Default button in password dialog now is "OK" :Default button in password dialogAlthough it is a small change but it makes OpenOffice more usable .
Now The OK button in the password dialog is the default button again .Remove the password length limitation:password length limitation" The current minimal password length limitation ( 5 characters ) is outdated and makes no sense any more.
Thus the limitation is removed, although the password is not allowed to be empty.
"Import of password protected Microsoft Office XML documents:This is a great feature.
Many people asked me how we can open password protected docx/xlsx files.
All document types are supported including: MS Word 2007 documents (*.docx, *.docm) - MS Word 2007 templates (*.dotx, *.dotm) - MS Excel 2007 documents (*.xlsx, *.xlsm) - MS Excel 2007 binary documents (*.xlsb) - MS Excel 2007 templates (*.xltx, *.xltm) - MS Powerpoint 2007 documents (*.pptx, *.pptm) - MS Powerpoint 2007 templates (*.potx, *.potm).Encryption support for "Microsoft Word 97/2000/XP" :This new feature make saving password protected Microsoft Word document possible with Microsoft Office standard RC4 algorithm.Keyboard shortcut configuration dialog now supports "ALT" modifier:supports ALT modifierBefore OpenOffice.org 3.2, the dialog for configuring keyboard shortcuts never allowed to use the ALT-key.
Now ALT as well as SHIFT-ALT, CTRL-ALT and SHIFT-CTRL-ALT modifiers can be used in the dialog.Impress and Draw now support comments:To support collaboration, it is now possible to add comments to a presentation or drawing</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811875</id>
	<title>Re:Word processing programs all have wrong UI desi</title>
	<author>rwv</author>
	<datestamp>1256066280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Screens are not very tall, but quite wide these days, on average.</p></div><p>Says the guy who puts line breaks into his post every 80 characters.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screens are not very tall , but quite wide these days , on average.Says the guy who puts line breaks into his post every 80 characters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screens are not very tall, but quite wide these days, on average.Says the guy who puts line breaks into his post every 80 characters.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29813639</id>
	<title>Re:Calculating with text</title>
	<author>spitzak</author>
	<datestamp>1256030220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed this bug in OO was used as an excuse by Microsoft to make their ODF output be incompatible. Their argument was basically "since these two different ODF programs treat this sample document differently, we are allowed to write a completely different third implementation". This bogus argument was wrapped in a disgusting and somewhat horrifying amount of obfuscated technobabble by obviously intelligent but amoral individuals at Microsoft (you can find several repeated links to this posted by astroturfers right here on Slashdot).</p><p>Truly I used to think that Microsoft was just somewhat incompetent and rushed so that their programmers tended to reinvent things without finding out there was a standard already. But this deliberate outright lying, with enough wording to make a pointed-headed boss think it is some complex technical argument, convinced me that there really are evil people there. Scary indeed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed this bug in OO was used as an excuse by Microsoft to make their ODF output be incompatible .
Their argument was basically " since these two different ODF programs treat this sample document differently , we are allowed to write a completely different third implementation " .
This bogus argument was wrapped in a disgusting and somewhat horrifying amount of obfuscated technobabble by obviously intelligent but amoral individuals at Microsoft ( you can find several repeated links to this posted by astroturfers right here on Slashdot ) .Truly I used to think that Microsoft was just somewhat incompetent and rushed so that their programmers tended to reinvent things without finding out there was a standard already .
But this deliberate outright lying , with enough wording to make a pointed-headed boss think it is some complex technical argument , convinced me that there really are evil people there .
Scary indeed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed this bug in OO was used as an excuse by Microsoft to make their ODF output be incompatible.
Their argument was basically "since these two different ODF programs treat this sample document differently, we are allowed to write a completely different third implementation".
This bogus argument was wrapped in a disgusting and somewhat horrifying amount of obfuscated technobabble by obviously intelligent but amoral individuals at Microsoft (you can find several repeated links to this posted by astroturfers right here on Slashdot).Truly I used to think that Microsoft was just somewhat incompetent and rushed so that their programmers tended to reinvent things without finding out there was a standard already.
But this deliberate outright lying, with enough wording to make a pointed-headed boss think it is some complex technical argument, convinced me that there really are evil people there.
Scary indeed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809537</id>
	<title>Re:Faster...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256058420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I evaluated 3.1 for use in my company for a department of about 100 people (would have saved $20,000 per year in licensing). The main problem was not speed but compatibility!
<br>
<br>
Please concentrate on fixing the problems with fonts/formatting!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I evaluated 3.1 for use in my company for a department of about 100 people ( would have saved $ 20,000 per year in licensing ) .
The main problem was not speed but compatibility !
Please concentrate on fixing the problems with fonts/formatting !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I evaluated 3.1 for use in my company for a department of about 100 people (would have saved $20,000 per year in licensing).
The main problem was not speed but compatibility!
Please concentrate on fixing the problems with fonts/formatting!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809641</id>
	<title>Measure progress by removed features</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1256058780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someday, when we are all enlightened,<br>progress on a software product will be measured by the number<br>of unnecessary features that have been removed, making<br>a more focussed and easier-to-use product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someday , when we are all enlightened,progress on a software product will be measured by the numberof unnecessary features that have been removed , makinga more focussed and easier-to-use product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someday, when we are all enlightened,progress on a software product will be measured by the numberof unnecessary features that have been removed, makinga more focussed and easier-to-use product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809509</id>
	<title>Article is awful!</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1256058360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not just more easier... but the wiki is "no more installed" and "not installed any more."  "This new feature make saving password..."  I guess he's from a non-English speaking country, though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not just more easier... but the wiki is " no more installed " and " not installed any more .
" " This new feature make saving password... " I guess he 's from a non-English speaking country , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not just more easier... but the wiki is "no more installed" and "not installed any more.
"  "This new feature make saving password..."  I guess he's from a non-English speaking country, though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809837</id>
	<title>Re:What about the fscking ribbon?!</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1256059560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At the rate OpenOffice development moves, you can be sure you won't see any hint of it for the next 5 years at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the rate OpenOffice development moves , you can be sure you wo n't see any hint of it for the next 5 years at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the rate OpenOffice development moves, you can be sure you won't see any hint of it for the next 5 years at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815093</id>
	<title>The errors in formatting between any is bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256035140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I made a document in Word 2007 That contained a table, some text to the right of the table all the way down the side in a column with a blue background, and at the very bottom (above the footer area) a paragraph of text explaining the information in the table and other tid bits.</p><p>It isn't anything extravagant, but neither OO.o or Word 2003 will read the format correctly at all, even when it's saved in Word 2000/XP whatever format.</p><p>The column to the right is all mangled into the table and text at the bottom, etc. I could always post the 1 page document if anyone would like to see how bad it gets mangled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I made a document in Word 2007 That contained a table , some text to the right of the table all the way down the side in a column with a blue background , and at the very bottom ( above the footer area ) a paragraph of text explaining the information in the table and other tid bits.It is n't anything extravagant , but neither OO.o or Word 2003 will read the format correctly at all , even when it 's saved in Word 2000/XP whatever format.The column to the right is all mangled into the table and text at the bottom , etc .
I could always post the 1 page document if anyone would like to see how bad it gets mangled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I made a document in Word 2007 That contained a table, some text to the right of the table all the way down the side in a column with a blue background, and at the very bottom (above the footer area) a paragraph of text explaining the information in the table and other tid bits.It isn't anything extravagant, but neither OO.o or Word 2003 will read the format correctly at all, even when it's saved in Word 2000/XP whatever format.The column to the right is all mangled into the table and text at the bottom, etc.
I could always post the 1 page document if anyone would like to see how bad it gets mangled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809159</id>
	<title>Import of password protected Microsoft Office XML</title>
	<author>gregfortune</author>
	<datestamp>1256057340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yay!  I think people were beginning to dislike me a little when I'd ask them to convert and resend an attachment that I couldn't open.  Looks like I'll have to hunt around for some other subtle way to annoy my co-workers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yay !
I think people were beginning to dislike me a little when I 'd ask them to convert and resend an attachment that I could n't open .
Looks like I 'll have to hunt around for some other subtle way to annoy my co-workers : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yay!
I think people were beginning to dislike me a little when I'd ask them to convert and resend an attachment that I couldn't open.
Looks like I'll have to hunt around for some other subtle way to annoy my co-workers :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812157</id>
	<title>Is OOBase finally useful?</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1256067300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, have they finally made OOBase useful for things like:<br>
<br>
- import/export data to CSV files?<br>
<br>
- The ability to query remote DBs and write the data into a local table?<br>
<br>
- Done away with the compressed zip format that makes working with a few dozen/hundred MB of data impossible?<br>
<br>
(I swear that nobody in the Open Office project truly understands Microsoft Access' strong points and why it is so hard to replace.  MSAccess is a great glue program, allowing you to easily move data sets around, deal with ad-hoc databases, quickly look at a table, copy/paste to/from a spreadsheet.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , have they finally made OOBase useful for things like : - import/export data to CSV files ?
- The ability to query remote DBs and write the data into a local table ?
- Done away with the compressed zip format that makes working with a few dozen/hundred MB of data impossible ?
( I swear that nobody in the Open Office project truly understands Microsoft Access ' strong points and why it is so hard to replace .
MSAccess is a great glue program , allowing you to easily move data sets around , deal with ad-hoc databases , quickly look at a table , copy/paste to/from a spreadsheet .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, have they finally made OOBase useful for things like:

- import/export data to CSV files?
- The ability to query remote DBs and write the data into a local table?
- Done away with the compressed zip format that makes working with a few dozen/hundred MB of data impossible?
(I swear that nobody in the Open Office project truly understands Microsoft Access' strong points and why it is so hard to replace.
MSAccess is a great glue program, allowing you to easily move data sets around, deal with ad-hoc databases, quickly look at a table, copy/paste to/from a spreadsheet.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815759
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29816263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29820351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809445
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29820079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811975
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29813639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29822197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29823039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29819441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29822493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29813353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29817077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809537
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809359
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_20_1539212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810829
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811175
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809579
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29822197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810355
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809359
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810381
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29817077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29816263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810845
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811371
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809165
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29822493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29813639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29820079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809299
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29813353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29819441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814097
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809479
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29815759
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29814401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810307
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811641
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29812809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29823039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29820351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29811439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29810113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_20_1539212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_20_1539212.29809505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
