Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
> I think the problem is that we should be defining a standard to store 
> text documents, not Word documents...

We have one already. ;-)

Seriously, the only reason this came up is because lots of people are 
using Word, and their governments basically said "You shouldn't be using 
Word, because it's not a standard."

> 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.

I agree. That's why I was asking why it was a big deal that the standard 
didn't specify how to understand everything Word can do.

> 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.

But does it matter? If you need it to do like Word97 does it, use Word, 
and you're screwed if your government says you're not allowed to. If you 
don't need it to do like Word97 does it, why do you care if the software 
you're using doesn't respect that standard?

I mean, if the standard doesn't say how word breaking works *with* the 
DoLikeWordNN and it doesn't say how work breaking works *without* the 
DoLikeWordNN, then I'd argue you can safely ignore the DoLikeWordNN and 
meet the standard.

Just like the Ada standard says "Behavior X is undefined." That doesn't 
mean that no matter what you do, you're not following the standard.

If "BreakLinesLikeWord97" behavior isn't defined, then it's safe to 
ignore it and still call yourself standards compliant, just like 
whatever code you generate for running off the end of an array in C is 
going to be standards compliant.

> It does not bring any of the benefits a standard should bring.

Right. I'm not saying the standard is good, or should pass. I'm saying 
the arguments against it that I've seen are stupid arguments. :-)

-- 
   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