|
|
Darren New a écrit :
>> 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.
>
I think the problem is that we should be defining a standard to store
text documents, not Word documents...
If anyone needs a standard to store Word documents, it's right there in
Word, just save the file :-) If there are parts of the standard that
depend on this specific software, you might as well define the standard
as "whatever Word is able to spit from the file" and be done with it.
As far as I know this is not the case of ODF, PDF, Postscript... Even if
there are unspecified behaviours, they shouldn't be described in terms
of what a particular piece of software does with it. But then I've never
read the specs of those formats either ;-)
In this specific case, someone implementing the standard and discarding
the parts "doLikeWordn.nnn" is not choosing a behaviour where the
standard does not say what should happen, or not implementing an
extension, he is plainly not respecting the standard.
If only Microsoft can implement the standard, it's not a standard, it's
a file format. It can be the de-facto standard but that's not the same
at all. It does not bring any of the benefits a standard should bring.
--
Vincent
Post a reply to this message
|
|