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

I didn't say it's impossible to write such a standard. But then you've 
also taken away the ability to make it do something differently.

> 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.

Right. But PDF is telling you how to render an already laid-out 
document. You're not going to be able to take a PDF file and (say) 
change the size of the font, and deduce what the layout is supposed to be.

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

And that's basically the argument against it.

>> 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.

No, there's lots. I'm just picking that one because it's a perfect example.

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

Yes. Go talk to any javascript author. In spite of javascript also being 
a standard. :-)

>> 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...

Right. So why do people complain that they can't look at the Word format 
and figure out how it's going to wrap the lines?

>> 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.

And did they use the Word97LineBreak conventions? :-)

> 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.

Didn't you just say you converted Word documents to ODF and back again? 
How unreadable could the format be?

This is exactly my point. You can't have it both ways. You can't say 
"Open Office is great because it can read Word documents" in one 
paragraph and then say "Word sucks because nobody can read its 
documents" in the next.

> 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.

It can't be impossible to implement, as Microsoft has implemented it. 
Any part that's not specified is open to interpretation. If the 
word-wrap isn't specified, then any implementation is OK. It might not 
come out exactly like Word, but it's still an implementation of the 
standard.


-- 
   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