On Mon, Jan 19, 2004, Alexander R. Pruss wrote:
> By the way, what happened to your experimental code that allowed viewing of
> DOC documents?
It's still experimental ;-)
It's just a side-effect of a more interesting change (for me at least),
but it's not at the top of my TODO list (yet).
/Mike
From: "Michael Nordstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Then do what I do and convert DOC documents into Plucker documents...
By the way, what happened to your experimental code that allowed viewing of
DOC documents?
I suppose, too, now that there is support for filters in the python parser,
one could a
On Mon, Jan 19, 2004, Alexander R. Pruss wrote:
> Plucker is generally better than any DOC reader I've seen.
Then do what I do and convert DOC documents into Plucker documents...
/Mike
___
plucker-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.rubber
From: "Michael Nordstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That won't happen, since record-loading won't be included in the
> module support. Why would there be a need for such a feature? To
> read DOC documents? You can already do that using different DOC
> readers (released under GPL).
Plucker is generally
On Sun, Jan 18, 2004, Alexander R. Pruss wrote:
> I suppose one plausible closed-source use someone might make of PPI is that
> once record-loading is included in PPI, a closed-source developer might make
> a DRM module for Plucker.
That won't happen, since record-loading won't
> (Current Plucker DRM is, I take it, not very good, since one could
> always compile a custom version of Plucker that instead of loading the
> hotsync name from the OS has the hotsync name hardcoded.)
Plucker's Python parser already has a "DRM-like" feature. We
I suppose one plausible closed-source use someone might make of PPI is that
once record-loading is included in PPI, a closed-source developer might make
a DRM module for Plucker. Whether this is a bad thing depends what one
thinks of DRM. (Current Plucker DRM is, I take it, not very good, since
Plucker-related discussion, let's move it
off-list.
> This is why I disagree with the GPL as well as any DRM schemes, because it
> forces authors down a certain path.
1.) What does the GPL have to do with DRM "schemes"?
2.) GPL enforces/reinforces the ri
n of the hash with
the private key of a well-known identity, so that the public key of
that identity could be built into the viewer code.
What does this have to do with DRM? Let's consider the security
levels of Microsoft Reader. There are three; let's call them
"certified", &qu
