<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Not exactly a valentine for IBM</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/jamesone/archive/2007/02/14/not-exactly-a-valentine-for-ibm.aspx</link><description>One of those odd coincidences. Back in January 26 when I was blogging about IBM FUD , I mentioned an Information Week Article where IBM made the assertion that " a so-called "open XML" platform file format, known as OOXML, is designed to run seamlessly</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)</generator><item><title>Sign-up for freedom of choice</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/b/jamesone/archive/2007/02/14/not-exactly-a-valentine-for-ibm.aspx#725059</link><pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 01:53:36 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:725059</guid><dc:creator>James O'Neill's blog </dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Back in February I wrote about IBM and their attempts to throw a spanner in the works for the Open XML&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img src="http://blogs.technet.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=725059" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>