On 2008-02-22, Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:59 +0100,
> Hadron <hadronquark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>
>>>> In article <UYidnUFlnevJhCPanZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> alt <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
>>>>> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
>>>>
>>>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
>>>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
>>>> format.
>>>
>>> Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
>>> those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
>>> system and proprietary Word processor around.
>>
>> LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
>> never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
>> uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.
>>
>
> makes no sense. We are discussing document formats, not the OS. Are you
> saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for something?
>
They might - for OLE automation. In other words, there are lots of
things besides other documents that can be embedded in a word doc.
--
Tom Shelton
|
|
