The 1-2-3 file format was published in book form and the Freelance format was available on request. I don’t believe that the WordPro format was ever documented.

From your experience in working at IBM on SmartSuite, how did the people perceive the binary file formats during the Lotus/IBM years?

Since XML became a W3C standard in 1998, any StarOffice version before then could not have had an XML format, right?

I bet it had a different file format and you’re embarrased to admit it :)

Awkward phrase. The usual phrase is “then you may have your way with them”, connoting sexual rapaciousness. Other choices might be “then you may bend them to your will”, or “then you may exercise your will over them”.

I’ve heard also, from another IBMer whose name I don’t recall, make a similar point about IBM OS/2 2.x and later, that to release it as Open Source, would leave huge chunks missing.

Which is what happened with Netscape and Mozilla, and which was resolved quite quickly in the case of encryption, if I remember correctly.

As far as missing rights holders go, I’ve had a bit of experience with that myself. I know a bit of how frustrating it can be, when the person concerned seems to have vanished from the face of the earth. Which is partly why I think such cases should be declared abandoned and in the public domain – rather like an abandoned and derelict vessel in busy shipping lanes can earn up to near its full value in salvage fees and maritime lien.

( makes me remember this post )

It seems that MS is prepared to do that.

Do a search of the term “extLst” in OOXML Part 4 Markup Reference:

651 occurrences.

Quoting some of them:

“3.2.10 extLst (Future Feature Data Storage Area) This element defines flexible storage extensions for implementing applications”
[end of subclause, no more information given!!]“


“3.2.7 ext (Extension) Each ext element contains extensions to the standard SpreadsheetML feature set.
Parent Elements: extLst (§3.2.10)
Child Elements: Any element from any namespace
Subclause: n/a
Attributes: uri (URI): A token to identify version and application information for this particular extension. The possible values for this attribute are defined by the XML Schema token datatype.
[end of subclause, no more information given!!!!]“


“5.1.2.1.14 ext (Extension)
This element [of type CT_OfficeArtExtension] specifies an extension that is used for future extensions to the current version of DrawingML. This allows for the specifying of currently unknown elements in the future that will be used for later versions of generating applications.
…
Attributes: uri (Uniform
Resource Identifier): Specifies the URI, or uniform resource identifier that represents the data stored under
this tag. The URI is used to identify the correct ’server’ that can process the contents of this tag. The possible values for this attribute are defined by the XML Schema token datatype. [end of subclause, what 'server'????!!!]“

Scaring …

Similarly, when a TV show is released in syndication or on DVD, they need to renegotiate the music rights with the composers and artists for any music used in the show. In some cases, like WKRP in Cincinnati, the musical changes required in the DVD versions, were extensive.

It seems like I might have commented on your thought somewhere else before, but I can’t find it.

At this point in their lifecycle, posting the SmartSuite products as open source is not really possible. IBM has considered it in the past. The base problem is that there is too much licensed technology/software that is part of SmartSuite… and in some cases, the companies that wrote them are gone or so diluted that getting permission / agreement to open source that stuff is legally or otherwise difficult.

I understand the desire and wish that it could be different. This is Rob’s blog and he worked on the suite, so he might have other data.

–Ed Brill

Well, if IBM decides that the SmartSuite source tree is much too good to simply dump, and they were willing to put it on Sourceforge under the Common Public License or some other OSI-approved license, I’m sure there would be quite a few people – including myself – who would be willing to take IBM up on the offer.

Among other things, it would open up the SmartSuite file formats so they could be supported more fully by other office suites – a complaint that I’ve read every now and then.

And SmartSuite would be adapted to use ODF – yet another contender that would make a hash of the Microsoft contention that ODF is OpenOffice.org under another name.

It would even support a contention I’ve made repeatedly to Microsoft and others, that once such-and-such a company has gotten rid of such-and-such a software product, it should turn it over to its fan-base; instead of competing with its installed base the way Microsoft currently does, it would use it to debug its previous product/s and then to move in new directions.

So how about it, IBM?

http://blogs.msdn.com/scaravajal/archive/2007/06/28/excel-2007-add-in-for-syncing-with-sharepoint.aspx

Apparently, even interoperability with their own proprietary software is impossible.

-Stephane Rodriguez

Sorry Bruce, I think you got it wrong.

MS has made no such announcement. And by the way VBA is of course part of Office 2007.

What they have announced though is that the MAC version of Office 2007, marketed as Mac Office 2008, will not provide support for VBA.

There is a huge difference. The Windows install base is not impacted. And as I said above, I don’t see how it can possibly be taken out given the stakes.

-Stephane Rodriguez

No, Microsoft cannot infuriates their install base.

There is way too much money in existing VBA stuff embedded in Word/Excel/Powerpoint documents right now that if there is one thing you can bet, it’s that it’s here for a looooonng time. And that no half-assed technology such as VSTO is going to replace it anytime soon.
Sure, two or three people at Microsoft want to do that, but for instance VSTO assemblies live outside documents, in other words this stuff is not allowed by the suits in the IT department. Remember Charles, power users in the enterprise are a minority.

-Stephane Rodriguez

We have a secondary vendor (Lotus with SmartSuite). I think Lotus (a division of IBM, now) would be perfectly happy never to sell another copy of SmartSuite; in fact I think if someone like Lenovo were to approach IBM, there’s a good chance IBM would sell off that business and we’d have Lenovo SmartSuite, growing in China.

Lotus are doing Notes now. Teamrooms, Replication, Professional Collaboration.

We have another vendor, Sun Microsystems, with StarOffice. I don’t think Sun make much of their revenue from StarOffice; it’s really so that they can get office productivity software going on SparcStations under Solaris, to give them (and their clients) some choices. Sun mainly sell ‘engineering services’ nowadays; warranties for Java.

And OpenOffice. Anyone can download that, any time they want, from http://www.openoffice.org/ ; source code and all; and do whatever they like with it. No charge.

It feels like when you’re in a plane, taxiing for take-off. On the runway, you need the wheels down. They are like Microsoft Office and Lotus SmartSuite. Faster, faster, faster, ‘Rotate’, tip the flaps, you’re up in the air and flying. Climb to cruising altitude, point to where you want to go. That’s what planes are for. The bit on the ground was just how you get started.

Then you don’t need the wheels. They only get in the way.

OpenOffice.org and ISO26300 from now on, please.