Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Note that there are no important parts of this standard that are not 
> completely defined. 

But that's my point. Are the parts that aren't well-defined in OOXML 
also "important"? Or they just stuff that Word needs to put there to 
make sure that when you export it and then import it again, you get 
exactly the same results?

> The trouble is, the M$ standard is something that looks like a standard, 
> but would be really hard for anybody except M$ to implement. 

So the complaint isn't with the standard as much as it is with how 
difficult it is to understand or implement the standard?

I hate to say this, but there's all kinds of standards like that out 
there. :-)  Especially in the telephone world.

> Basically, the way the "standard" is written means that the only way to 
> implement it is to duplicate Word. You can't [easily] implement it in a 
> slightly different way. And that's not the point of standards...

Agreed that the only way to implement all of it would be to essentially 
duplicate every aspect of what Word does. But that's my point. If this 
document standard is a way of storing Word documents, and you want to be 
able to store them and bring them back into Word without change, you 
need to dump to the file every ability that Word has.

If you don't want to implement Word97WrapMode in your word processor, 
then ignore that flag, yes?

> Of course, a document format standard *already* exists.

It looks like the standard allows you to include arbitrary scripts in 
arbitrary scripting languages. Kind of hard to ensure interoperability.

It also lets you name the fonts without including the glyphs. Again, 
hard to ensure that what comes out is what went in.

 > And it's pretty
> obvious why M$ wants to invent another one rather than use the existing 
> one...

Well, sure. Because the existing one can't store Word documents. That's 
kind of my point.

If ODF doesn't specify how text is laid out on a page, and Word does, 
then you can't export Word to an ODF document and have it come out 
correctly.

It's analogous to imagining a word processing standard that doesn't 
specify the fonts, and then asking how you'd make your word processor 
export to that format, yes?

If you need the features of Word, and you want to interact with Word, 
you're going to wind up with a document format that has all the cruft of 
Word in it. If you don't need the features of Word, you don't need to 
use Word, and you don't need to worry about Word97WrapMode or whatever 
might be in all the gruesome poorly-documented bitmaps, yes?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message