Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged interop

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

Re: [office-comment] Public Comment - 0 views

lists.oasis-open.org/...msg00016.html

shared by Gary Edwards on 23 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Regarding section 1.5 itself: The Open Office TC decided to use the term MAY rather than MUST (or will) at the mentioned location, because it wanted to ensure that the OpenDocument specification can be used by as many implementations as possible. This means that the format should also be usable by applications that only support a very small subset of the specification, as long as the information that these applications store can be represented using the OpenDocument format. A requirement that all foreign elements and attributes must be preserved actually would mean that some applications may not use the format, although the format itself would be suitable. Therefor, we leave it up to the implementations, which elements and attributes of the specification they support, and whether they preserve foreign element and attributes. Some more information about this can be found in appendix D of the specification.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 23 Jan 08
       
      This OASIS ODF discussion is about the Compliance - conformance clause of the ODF specification: Section 1.5. A developer has complained that use of MAY instead of MUST in the wording of the clause would enable conforming applications to destroy foreign elements and alien attribute markup at will. This of course would result in ZERO Interoeprability!!!!! The foreign elments and alien attributes were included for the purposes of improved ODF compatibility with the billions of MSOffice binary documents that would need to be converted to ODF. Sadly, the section 1.5 loop hole falls short of the compatibility goal, but that only begins to scratch the surface of the ODF problems. OpenOffice only supports foreign elements and alien attributes for text spans, and paragraphs!!!!!! All other such markup is unrecognized and therefore "destroyed" by OpenOffice. ZERO interop. No roundtripping with MSOffice desktops. Lossy conversion with jagged fidelity. Guaranteed.
Gary Edwards

Open XML trumps ODF in document format fight, consulting firm says - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...article.do

burtongorup cdf odf okelly ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08 - Cached
  • Marino Marcich, executive director of the OpenDocument Format Alliance, retorted via e-mail that many users are taking "a buyer-beware attitude" toward Open XML because that format "is not interoperable and will tie them to the upgrade path of a single vendor." For example, he noted that Becta, the U.K. government's educational technology agency, last week released a report of its own advising, among other things, that to ensure the widest compatibility of files between different applications, Office 2007 users shouldn't save documents in Open XML. Instead, Becta recommended the continued use of Microsoft's older and proprietary .doc, .xls and .ppt formats.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 20 Jan 08
       
      It's true, OOXML is not interoperable. It was designed for MSOffice and MSOffice only. The problem is that there is no interoperable" alternative to OOXML!!!! ODF itself has serious interoperability problems fully demonstrated at the October 2007 ODF Interoeprability Workshop held in Barcelona Spain. If users want interoperbility with ODF, they must settle on a single ODF vendor. So how is that different from the interop problems imposed by OOXML?
Gary Edwards

Gmail - [office] Clarification for frame formatting property style:flow-with-text - Flock - 0 views

mail.google.com/mail

foundation imported:del.icio.us oasis odf opendocument

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Some notes on the history of this feature in OpenOffice.org Writer:Prior to OpenOffice.org 2.0, text frames, embedded object and graphicsare clipped/captured inside its layout environment and flow with thetext flow, if possible. The reason for this was, that the contentstructure also determines the layout structure - e.g. a paragraph insidea page header have to stay inside the page header.Shapes (drawing objects in OpenOffice.org) unfortunately doesn't followthis rule.For OpenOffice.org 2.0, we needed to unify text frames, embeddedobjects, graphics and shapes. Thus, this frame formatting property hasbeen proposed. This need was also influenced by interoperabilityrequests for the binary Microsoft Word file format and the MicrosoftWord layout.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Aha!  I mentioned in an earlier bookmark that Sun was involved in the Belgium ODF - OOXML Pilot Study.  It was disclosed by Peter V. (Belgium Consultant to Peter Strick's group) that Sun was proposing changes to the ODF 1.2 specification, after the close date, to improve the conversion fidelity problem their plug-in is having in the trials.  We tried to do the same thing to save ODF in Massachusetts.  Sun didn't have a plug-in for the Massachusetts trials, and opposed our iX interop enhancements and extensions.  I guess they are beginning to understand why the iX proposals are so important? 

    If you can't convert MS binaries and xml to ODF, then there is no use in the real world for ODF.  It's that simple.   In California, the CIO's routinely refer to this problem as, "ODF is impossible to implement".

    ~ge~

  • ...1 more comment...
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Summary of First ODF Summit held in Armonk, organized by IBM and Sun. List of names for all attendees
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Summary of First ODF Summit held in Armonk, organized by IBM and Sun. List of names for all attendees
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Summary of First ODF Summit held in Armonk, organized by IBM and Sun. List of names for all attendees
Gary Edwards

Microsoft Hit By U.S. DOT Ban On Windows Vista, Explorer 7, and Office 2007 - Technolog... - 0 views

www.informationweek.com/...showArticle.jhtml

exchange/sharepoint government msoffice odf opendocument standards vista vistachain vistastack

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • »  E-Mail »  Print »  Discuss »  Write To Editor late last year -- can be resolved. "We have more confidence in Microsoft than we would have 10 years ago," says Schmidt. "But it always makes sense to look at the security implications, the value back to the customer, and those kind of issues." The DOT's ban on Vista, Internet Explorer 7, and Office 2007 applies to 15,000 computer users at DOT proper who are currently running the Windows XP Professional operating system. The memo indicates that a similar ban is in effect at the Federal Aviation Administration, which has 45,000 desktop users. Compatibility with existing applications appears to be the Transportation Department's major concern. According to a separate memo, a number of key software applications and utilities in use in various branches of the department aren't Vista compatible. Among them are Aspen 2.8.1, ISS 2.11, ProVu 3.1.1, and Capri 6.5, according to a memo issued by staffers at the DOT's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Any prolonged ban on new Microsoft technologies by the federal government could have a significant impact on the software maker's bottom line, as Microsoft sells millions of dollars in software to the feds annually. http://as.cmpnet.com/event.ng/Type=count&ClientType=2&AdID=125682&FlightID=75634&TargetID=2625&SiteID=222&AffiliateID=283&EntityDefResetFlag=0&Segments=1411,3108,3448,11291,12119&Targets=2625,2878,7904,8579&Values=34,46,51,63,77,87,91,102,140,222,227,283,442,646,656,1184,1255,1311,1405,1431,1716,1767,1785,1798,1925,1945,1970,2217,2299,2310,2326,2352,2678,2727,2767,2862,2942,3140,3347,3632,3636,3638,3890,3904,4080,448
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
       
      DOT chief technology officer Tim Schmidt DOT's CIO Daniel Mintz Federal Department of Transportation
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Whoa, those government desktops add up quickly.  This Vista ban will immediately effect over 50,000 desktops, with tens of thousands more possibly impacted by the IE 7.0 ban.  The MS Exchange/SharePoint Hub juggernaut is based on IE 7.0, which is not available for Windows 2000 - MSOffice 2000 desktops.

    Lack of Vista Stack compatibility with non Microsoft application is given as the reason for the ban.  But notice the "alternatives" to Vista mentioned; Novel SuSE and Apple Mac.  What kind of interop - compatibility do they offer?  My guess is ZERO!

    The reality is that the DOT is trapped.  My advice would be stay exactly where they are, keeping the current MSOffice desktop installs running.  Then, install the Foundation's daVinci ODF plugin for MSOffice. 

    This will insure that Windows OS and  MSOffice bound business processes can continue to function without disruption.  Win32 APi based applications like those mentioned in the article can continue.  Critical day to day business processes, workgroup and workflow related activities can continue without disruption or costly re engineering demanded by a cross platform port.

    What daVinci doe sdo is move the iron triangle that binds Windows-MSOffice applications to business processes and documents, to an ODF footing.  Once on a ODF footing, the government can push forward with the same kind of workgroup - workflow - intelligent docuemnt - collaborative computing advnaces that the Vista Stack was designed to deliver.  Only this push will involve the highly competitive "the customer is sovereign" environment of ODF ready desktop, server, device and Web 2.0 systems.  End of Redmond lock-in.  End of the costly iron triangle and the force march upgrade treadmill that so enriches Microsoft.

    So what's not to like?  We can do this.
    ~ge~

    http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dghfk5w9_20d2x6rf&revi
Gary Edwards

Microsoft Closer on \'Office Open\' Blessing - 0 views

www.internetnews.com/...3662681

ecma exchange iso microsoft msoffice oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml sharepoint vista xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Opponents to OOXML, which include IBM (Quote) and the Open Document Foundation, have argued that Microsoft's specifications are unwieldy and that the standard application is redundant with the Open Document Format (ODF), which already exists. Microsoft has countered that the OOXML format is valuable because it is closer to Office 2007 and is backwards-compatible with older versions of Office. "Although both ODF and Open XML are document formats, they are designed to address different needs in the marketplace," the company wrote in an open letter published earlier this month.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Internet News is reporting that Ecma has submitted to the ISO/IEC JTC1 their repsonsess to the 20 "fast track" for Ecma 376 (OOXML) objections.  Nothing but blue skies and steady breeze at their back for our friends at Redmond, according to Ecma's rubber stamper in chief, Jan van den Beld.

    Once again there is that ever present drum beat from Microsoft that ODF can't handle MSOffice and legacy MSOffice features - including but not mentioned the conversion to XML of those infamous billions of binary documents:
    "Microsoft has countered that the OOXML format is valuable because it is closer to Office 2007 and is backwards-compatible with older versions of Office. "Although both ODF and Open XML are document formats, they are designed to address diffe
Gary Edwards

Matusow's Blog : Open XML Translator - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...658184.aspx

imported:del.icio.us interop interoperability msxml odf

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Microsoft's ODf Translator Project and interoperability position
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Microsoft's ODf Translator Project and interoperability position
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Microsoft's ODf Translator Project and interoperability position
Gary Edwards

The Meaning of Open Standards - 0 views

www.csrstds.com/openstds.html

ecma iso oasis odf ooxml w3c

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    The marbux comment:

    See particularly section 6.8 and its discussion of "etiquettes," which sounds like CDF profiles to me.

    This 1998 academic paper on open standards could give us a solid foundation to build our arguments for Universal Interop from. I may have forwarded this link before, roughly a year ago. Here is the abstract of the paper:

    This paper develops the argument that many Information Technology standardization processes are in transition from being controlled by standards creators to being controlled by standards implementers. The users of standardized implementations also have rights that they wish addressed. Ten basic rights of standards creators, implementers and users are identified and quantified. Each of these ten rights represents an aspect of Open Standards. Only when all ten rights are supported will standards be open to all.

    It builds upon a previous work by Bruce Perens. Well worth the read.

Graham Perrin

Doug Mahugh : Standards-Based Interoperability - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...ds-based-interoperability.aspx

interop standard ODF OOXML Excel spreadsheet OpenFormula

shared by Graham Perrin on 28 Jul 09 - Cached
  • Standards-Based Interoperability
  • 05 June 09
  • Interoperability without Standards
  • ...46 more annotations...
  • First, let’s consider how software interoperability works when it is not standards-based. Consider the various ways that four applications can share data, as shown in the diagram to the right.  There are six connections between these four applications, and each connection can be traversed in either direction, so there are 12 total types of interoperability involved.
  • As the number of applications increases, this complexity grows rapidly.  Double the number of applications to 8 total, and there will be 56 types of interoperability between them:
  • through standards maintenance, transparency of implementation details, and collaborative interoperability testing.
    • Graham Perrin
      Graham Perrin on 28 Jul 09
       
      Issues relating to CalDAV are well addressed in these ways.
  • Here’s where those workarounds will need to be implemented: Note the complexity of this diagram.
  • In the real world, interoperability is almost never achieved in this way.  Standards-based interoperability is much better approach for everyone involved,
  • whether that standard is an open one such as ODF (IS26300)
  • or a de-facto standard set by one popular implementation.
  • or Open XML (IS29500)
  • The core premise of open standards-based interoperability is this:
  • each application implements the published standard as written, and this provides a baseline for delivering interoperability.
  • the existence of a standard addresses many of the issues involved, and the other issues can be addressed
  • In the standards-based scenario, the standard itself is the central mechanism for enabling interoperability between implementations: This diagram is much simpler
  • there is no question that users of other products are massively surprised by
  • How this all applies to Office 2007 SP2 I covered last summer the set of guiding principles that we used to guide the work we did to support ODF in Office 2007 SP2.
  • applied in a specific order
  • I’d like to revisit the top two guiding principles
  • Guiding Principle #1: Adhere to the ODF 1.1 Standard
  • Guiding Principle #2: Be Predictable
  • Being predictable is also known as the principle of least astonishment.
  • What about Bugs and Deviations? Of course, the existence of a published standard doesn’t prevent interoperability bugs from occurring.
  • deviations from the requirements
  • different interpretations
  • Our approach to the transparency issue has been to document the details of our implementation through published implementer notes.
  • Interoperability Testing The final piece of the puzzle is hands-on testing
  • What else would you like to know about how Office approaches document format interoperability?
  • a standard (evolved and improved as reality demands) is the proper foundation for resolving interoperabilty
  • All complex software has bugs, and some bugs can present significant challenges to interoperability.  Let’s consider the case that 3 of the 4 applications have bugs that affect interoperability, as shown in the diagram to the right.
  • (1) their spreadsheets having their formulas lost when interchanged with Excel 2007
  • (2) not being able to handle the formulase received in Excel 2007's ODF output.
  • I am creating my own fantasy about the state of affairs
    • Graham Perrin
      Graham Perrin on 28 Jul 09
       
      :-)
  • it is far too early to declare it to be unsuccessful
  • I cannot fault the Microsoft approach as incorrect
  • I was at the year-ago DII meeting where the guiding principles were announced and their application to spreadsheet formulas described.  I applauded the principles and understood the reasoning for formulas.
  • How this would impact various groups of users and non-users (who still want to interoperate) of Office 2007 did not surface in my consciousness.
  • there is NO published standard for ODF spreadsheet formulas yet.
  • Nor is there any de-facto standard that everyone agrees on.
  • the “spaghetti diagram" method, with all of the complexity and risk of bugs that entails
  • No implementer we know of has attempted that
  • In the case of spreadsheet formulas, help is on the way -- OpenFormula is under development for use with ODF 1.2.
  • I’d like to keep this thread on-topic
  • I appreciate the post, very good
  • Visually I would rather frame it in terms of convergence, a spiral.
  • and user satisfaction.
  • I doubt someone would ever find a magic bullet to interoperability
  • New Comments to this post are disabled
    • Graham Perrin
      Graham Perrin on 28 Jul 09
       
      Hurrah!
  • © 2009 Microsoft Corporation
  • Graham Perrin on 28 Jul 09
     
    Diagrams here are eye-catching.
Alex Brown

Doug Mahugh : Tracked Changes - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...tracked-changes.aspx

shared by Alex Brown on 14 May 09 - Cached
  • Much was made during the IS29500 standards process of the difference in the size of the ODF and Open XML specifications.  This is a good example of where that difference comes from: in this case, a concept glossed over in three vague sentences of the ODF spec gets 17 pages of documentation in the Open XML spec.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 14 May 09
       
      This is the nub; OOXML may be overweight, but ODF is severely undernourished as a spec.
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Alex, I know from your previous writings that you do not regard OOXML as completely specified. But your post might be so misinterpreted. In my view, neither ODF nor OOXML has yet reached the threshold of eligibility as an international standard, completely specifying "clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, Annex I. . OOXML is ahead of ODF in some aspects of specificity, but the eligibility finish line remains beyond the horizon for both.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Alex Brown on 14 May 09
     
    Paul, that's right - though so far the faulty things in OOXML turn out to be more round the edges as opposed to ODF's central lapses. Still, it's early days in the examination of OOXML so I'm reserving making any firm call on the comparative merits of the specs until I have read a lot (a lot) more. Is there an area of OOXML you'd say was particularly underbaked? I'm quite interested in the fact that neither of these beasts specify scripting languages ...
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Hi, Alex, Most seriously, there are no profiles and accompanying requirements to enable less featureful apps to round trip documents with more featureful apps, a la W3C Compound Document by Reference Framework. That's an enormous barrier to market entry and interoperability. That defect reacts synergistically with the dearth of semantic conformity requirements, with the incredible number of options including those 500+ identified extension points, and with a compatibility framework for extensions that while a good start leaves implementers far too much discretion in assigning and processing compatibility attributes. There are also major harmonization issues with other standards that get in the way of transformations, where Microsoft originally rolled its own rather than embracing existing open standards. I think it not insignificant that OOXML as a whole is available only under a RAND-Z pledge rather than being available for the entire world. The patent claims need to be identified and worked around or a different rights scheme needs Microsoft management's promulgation. This is a legal interoperability issue as opposed to technical, but an interoperability barrier nonetheless, an "unnecessary obstacle to international trade" in the sense of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. And absent a change by Microsoft in its rights regime, the work-arounds are technical. This is not to suggest that ODF lacks problems in regard to the way it implements standards incorporated by reference. The creation of unique OASIS namespaces rather than doing the needed harmonizing work with the relevant W3C WGs is a large ODF tumor in need of removal and reconstructive surgery. I'm not sure what is happening with the W3C consultation in that regard. I worked a good part of the time over several months comparing ODF and Ecma 376, evaluating their comparative suitability as document exchange formats. I gave up when it climbed well past 100 pages in length because the de
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    1. Full-featured editors available that are capable of not generating application-specific extensions to the formats? 2. Interoperability of conforming implementations mandatory? 3. Interoperability between different IT systems either demonstrable or demonstrated? 4. Profiles developed and required for interoperability? 5. Methodology specified for interoperability between less and more featureful applications? 6. Specifies conformity requirements essential to achieve interoperability? 7. Interoperability conformity assessment procedures formally established and validated? 8. Document validation procedures validated? 9. Specifies an interoperability framework? 10. Application-specific extensions classified as non-conformant? 11. Preservation of metadata necessary to achieve interoperability mandatory? 12. XML namespaces for incorporated standards properly implemented? (ODF-only failure because Microsoft didn't incorporate any relevant standards.) 13. Optional feature interop breakpoints eliminated? 14. Scripting language fully specified for embedded scripts? 15. Hooks fully specified for use by embedded scripts? 16. Standard is vendor- and application-neutral? 17. Market requirement -- Capable of converging desktop, server, Web, and mobile device editors and viewers? (OOXML better equipped here, but its patent barrier blocks.)
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Didn't notice that my post before last was chopped at the end until after I had posted the list. Then Diigo stopped responding for a few minutes. Anyway, the list is short summation of my research on the comparative suitabilities of ODF 1.1 and Ecma 376 as document exchange formats, winnowed to the defects they have in common except as noted. The research was never completed because in the political climate of the time, the world wasn't ready to act on the defects. The criteria applied were as objective as I could make them; they were derived from competition law, JTC 1 Directives, and market requirements. I think the list is as good today in regard to IS 29500 as it was then to Ecma 376, although I have not taken an equally deep dive into 29500. You might find the list useful, albeit there is more than a bit of redundancy in it.
Gary Edwards

Microsoft's Quest for Interoperability and Open Standards - 0 views

www.cmswire.com/...-and-open-standards-004220.php

webkit interop open-web open-standards microsoft

shared by Gary Edwards on 17 Apr 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 17 Apr 09
     
    Interesting article discussing the many ways Microsoft is using to improve the public perception that they are serious about interoperability and open formats, protocols and interfaces. Rocketman attended the recent ISO SC34 meeting in Prague and agrees that Microsoft has indeed put on a new public face filled with cooperation, compliance and unheard of sincerity.

    He also says, "Don't be fooled!!!"

    There is a big difference between participation in vendor consortia and government sponsored public standards efforts, and, actual implementation at the product level. Looking at how Microsoft products implement open standards, my take is that they have decided on a policy of end user choice. Their applications offer on the one hand the choice of aging, near irrelevant and often crippled open standards. And on the other, the option of very rich and feature filled but proprietary formats, protocols and interfaces that integrate across the entire Microsoft platform of desktop, devices and servers. For instance; IE8 supports 1998 HTML-CSS, but not the advanced ACiD-3 "HTML+" used by WebKit, Firefox, Opera and near every device or smartphone operating at the edge of the Web. (HTML+ = HTML5, CSS4, SVG/Canvas, JS, JS Libs).

    But they do offer advanced .NET-WPF proprietary alternative to Open Web HTML+. These include XAML, Silverlight, XPS, LINQ, Smart Tags, and OOXML. Very nice.

    "When an open source advocate, open standards advocate, or, well, pretty much anyone that competes with Microsoft (news, site) sees an extended hand from the software giant toward better interoperability, they tend to look and see if the other hand's holding a spiked club.

    Even so, the Redmond, WA company continues to push the message that it has seen the light regarding open standards and interoperability...."

Gary Edwards

Developing a Universal Markup Solution For Web Content - 0 views

www.cmswire.com/...ion-for-web-content-004290.php

kodaxil xml interop gnoesis

shared by Gary Edwards on 17 Apr 09 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 17 Apr 09
     
    KODAXIL To Replace XML?\n

    \nFile this one under the Universal Interoperability label. Very interesting. Especially since XML document formats have proven to fall short on the two primary expectations of users: interoperability and Web ready. Like HTML+ :) Maybe KODAXIL will work?\n

    \nThe recent Web 2.0 Conference was filled with new web services , portals and wiki efforts trying their best to mash data into document objects. iCloud, MindTouch, AppLogic, 3Tera, Caspio and Gazoodle all deserve attention. although each took a rather different approach towards solving the problem. MindTouch in particular was excellent.\n

    \n"A Montreal-based software and research development company has developed a markup solution and language-neutral asset-descriptor that when fully developed, could result in a universal computer language for representing information in databases, web and document contents and business objects."\n

    \n"While still at a seminal stage of development, the company Gnoesis, aims to address the problem of data fragmentation caused by semantic differences between developers and users from different linguistic backgrounds."\n

    \nGnoesis, the company that has developed the language called KODAXIL (Knowledge, Object, Data, Action, and eXtensible Interoperable Language), a data and information representation language, says the new language will replace the XML function of consolidating semantically identical data streams from different languages, by creating a common language to do this.\n

    \nThe extensible semantic markup associated with this language will be understood worldwide and is three times shorter than XML.
Jesper Lund Stocholm

An Antic Disposition: Protocols, Formats and the Limits of Disclosure - 2 views

www.robweir.com/...ols-formats-and-limits-of.html

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 13 Oct 09 - Cached
  • it strips out ODF spreadsheet formulas
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 13 Oct 09
       
      Telling ellision. I think Rob means "OpenOffice.org spreadsheet formulas" ...
  • interoperability is achieved by converging on a common interpretation of the format
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 13 Oct 09
       
      Or, rather more effectively, by drafting the standard competently enough that the need for "intepretation" is, in practice, eliminated ...
  • However, from an interoperability perspective, MCE doesn't cut it. MCE is really just hand waving and pixie dust.
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 14 Oct 09
       
      That is absolutely correct - MCE is not an interop tool or panacea - it is a compatibility-tool.
Paul Merrell

Microsoft opens Outlook format, gives programs access to mail, calendar, contacts - 0 views

www.computerworld.com/...cess_to_mail_calendar_contacts

Microsoft Outlook interop de facto standards

shared by Paul Merrell on 28 Oct 09 - Cached
  • Microsoft on Monday said it will provide patent- and license-free use rights to the format behind its Outlook Personal Folders opening e-mail, calendar, contacts and other information to a host of applications such as antimalware or cloud-based services.
  • Documenting and publishing the .pst format could open up entirely new feature sets for programs such as search tools for mining mailboxes for relevant corporate data, new security tools that scan .pst data for malicious software, or e-discovery tools for meeting compliance regulations, according to Microsoft officials.
  • Paul Merrell on 28 Oct 09
     
    The ripples from the European Commission v. Microsoft decision continue to flow. The catch, of course, is that the patent rights will almost certainly be subject to the Microsoft Open Specification Promise, a weasel-worded document that actually grants no rights. http://law.bepress.com/unswwps/flrps/art71/ But someone with some clout will push that issue sooner or later.
« First ‹ Previous 81 - 94 of 94
Showing 20▼ items per page