<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: See Inside Office 2007 Files</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2008/11/see_inside_office_2007_files/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2008/11/see_inside_office_2007_files/</link>
	<description>tips and downloads to help you at work and play</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:25:01 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Shane</title>
		<link>http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2008/11/see_inside_office_2007_files/comment-page-1/#comment-1645</link>
		<dc:creator>Shane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:32:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lifehacker.com.au/tips/2008/11/05/see_inside_office_2007_files.html#comment-1645</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;The interesting thing (well interesting to me anyway) is that even though .docx is just a file container for the XML, it&#039;s still not very accessible and definitely very difficult for a human to read.  On the other hand, .odt (Open Document), while also a container for XML and not easy to read, is much easier to read (you can see screenshots comparing the two in a post I wrote ages ago here - http://techwhimsy.com/opening-odt-and-docx-are-they-human-readable).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I think being human readable is important when it comes to documents being produced and archived with public money (eg Government documents) as the easier it is for a human to parse the SML, the easier it is to ensure the information is appropriately stored and accessed into the future. File formats are so fragile and can disappear in a relatively short period of time. Anything that makes information easier to preserve for future generations has to be a good thing.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The interesting thing (well interesting to me anyway) is that even though .docx is just a file container for the XML, it&#8217;s still not very accessible and definitely very difficult for a human to read.  On the other hand, .odt (Open Document), while also a container for XML and not easy to read, is much easier to read (you can see screenshots comparing the two in a post I wrote ages ago here &#8211; <a href="http://techwhimsy.com/opening-odt-and-docx-are-they-human-readable)" rel="nofollow">http://techwhimsy.com/opening-odt-and-docx-are-they-human-readable)</a>.</p>
<p>I think being human readable is important when it comes to documents being produced and archived with public money (eg Government documents) as the easier it is for a human to parse the SML, the easier it is to ensure the information is appropriately stored and accessed into the future. File formats are so fragile and can disappear in a relatively short period of time. Anything that makes information easier to preserve for future generations has to be a good thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
