On 2 Apr 2005 at 17:31, Jim Wagner wrote: > Tony Pursell wrote: > > On 2 Apr 2005 at 12:28, Chris BONDE wrote: > > > > > >>When you say beta 2.0 has own file types, are they just different > >>extensions or actual difference in file layout. I undersatnd that > >>the .swx is a zipped file with at least three files inside. > >> > >>Chris > >> > > > > > > Both versions have files within zipped files, but they are different > > formats. Ver 2.0 conforms to the OASIS standard. > > > > > My understanding is that version 2.0 is using a different format for > its standard document, and that his change is occasioned by claims > from MS on XML. > > My question then is this; will 2.0 and following versions still be > able to open .sxw documents? Or should I go through all my files and > convert all .sxws to .rtfs? > > Or have I got the wrong information, or wrong problem? >
Hi Jim, Currently 2.0 reads and writes all the .sx* file types. I don't think there is any need for you to convert them all to RTF. As for the MS claim on XML. I am no expert on patent law, but I think that OOo and others got there first - so they can claim 'prior art'. Tony Pursell --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
