>> 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?

You know, PDF manages to look the same everywhere. This clearly 
demonstrates how "impossible" it is to write such a standard.

>> 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.

You know, PDF specifies exactly how stuff should look on a page - and 
*lots* of people have implemented that. HTML & CSS allow you to 
construct complex layouts, and these are also widely implemented.

>> 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.

That's kind of the point. It shouldn't *be* a way of storing Word 
documents, it should be a way of storing documents.

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

You make it sound as if this is the *only* Word-specific part of the spec.

>> 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.

Yeah. HTML has had this ability for years, and they've had no end of 
trouble ensuring interoperability. Oh, wait...

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

Your point? Word's native .doc format has precisely the same flaw. As 
does PostScript, actually. And PDF, depending on your settings...

>> 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 refute that.

I have converted Word documents to ODF and back again, with little or no 
change to the document.



The motivation of M$ is very clear to see here. They want to claim that 
because they've documented this "standard", anybody that wants to could 
implement it, and hence any data stored in this format isn't locked up 
in an unreadable format.

The fact is, this is not the case. Nobody is going to be able to 
implement this standard properly, because it is specifically and 
deliberately designed to be impossible to implement. And that should not 
be allowed.

Post a reply to this message