- From: Mike Schinkel <w3c-lists@mikeschinkel.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:47:25 -0400
- To: Alexander Graf <a.graf@aetherworld.org>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Alexander Graf wrote: > On 15.04.2007, at 02:04, Mike Schinkel wrote: >> Alexander Graf wrote: >>> You do realize that all those tools use the Microsoft viewers and >>> merely provide an >>> alternative interface? That also means all those tools only run on >>> Windows. >> Do you realize your assertion is false as well? For example: > No, actually I don't. >> *Aspose.Word: * Aspose.Words enables .NET .... >> *TxText:* TX Text Control .NET > It's news to me that .NET runs on platforms such as Mac OS X, Linux, > BSD, ...and > even if they would be able to work under Mono, they still require > Windows (according > to the developers and the product websites). I was replying to your assertion "all those tools use the Microsoft viewers" which was false. But the point is someone outside Microsoft can develop tools that read and display Microsoft documents. >> My assertion stands; it economically possible for people to reverse >> engineer Microsoft's formats. > My and Håkon's assertion stands. It's not economically possible for > people to reverse > engineer Office formats. Especially not with that OLE container stuff. Minimally Apose and the Imaging Source *have* reverse engineered Office formats; how can you deny that? Just because they require Windows does not make them any less valid; I'm sure Opera Software for example could OEM the technology if they wanted to and implement it to work cross platform. -- -Mike Schinkel http://www.mikeschinkel.com/blogs/ http://www.welldesignedurls.org http://atlanta-web.org - http://t.oolicio.us
Received on Sunday, 15 April 2007 00:47:53 UTC