OpenDoc [was: Plug-In Spec ]

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Thu, 14 Mar 1996 00:18:31 -0500


Message-Id: <m0tx5Ql-0002UTC@beach.w3.org>
To: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Cc: Kay Winkler <K.Winkler@gsi.de>, www-html@w3.org, opendoc-interest@cil.org,
Subject: OpenDoc [was: Plug-In Spec ]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 13 Mar 1996 09:30:22 EST."
             <199603131430.JAA05959@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> 
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 00:18:31 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <199603131430.JAA05959@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>, Paul Prescod wr
ites:
>
>What I would like to know is where is CILabs and OpenDoc in all of this?

They submitted a position paper for our workshop:

	http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/OOP/9606_Workshop/

>OpenDoc exists exactly for this kind of thing, is heads and shoulders above
>OLE,

"head and shoulders above"? I've heard this claim, but I'm still looking
for hard evidence to back it. In fact, I'd like somebody to write a W3C
draft on OpenDoc vs. other compound document architectures, kinda like
this one on the ILU Requestor:

	http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-ilu-requestor-960307

Any takers?

> is already multiplatform, has already been integrated into a browser
>(CyberDog) and the source code is available.

What are the licensing terms for the code?

> It seems like a perfect
>candidate for W3C (but probably not IETF) standardization.

Dan