Challenge (Part II)

A tongue-in-cheek challenge for Mr. Rob Weir.

[code=xml]<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<office:document-content
  xmlns:office="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:office:1.0"
  xmlns:text="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:text:1.0"
  xmlns:table="urn:oasis:names:tc:opendocument:xmlns:table:1.0"
  office:version="1.1">
  <office:body>
    <office:spreadsheet>
      <table:table table:name="Sheet1" table:protected="true" table:protection-key="8A45FB0C33667F9E33ECA007FCE4F6684DC5F242">
        <table:table-column />
        <table:table-row >
          <table:table-cell office:value-type="float" office:value="10">
            <text:p>10</text:p>
          </table:table-cell>
        </table:table-row>
        <table:table-row >
          <table:table-cell office:value-type="string">
            <text:p>
              Dear Rob Weir. Please prove by this example that ODF is an "interoperable"
              document format and tell me how a consuming application should determine if the
              user should be allowed to modify the document. I do not think that it is.
              In fact I think that your statements that ODF is a document format that
              provides interoperability are brash, irresponsible and indefensible
              pieces of bombast that you should retract.
            </text:p>
          </table:table-cell>
        </table:table-row>
      </table:table>
    </office:spreadsheet>
  </office:body>
</office:document-content>[/code] 

(and yes, one of the reasons for this post is to show off the cool syntax highlighter of this blog engine)

And could you guys please stop the bickering and let's move on to something a bit more interesting?