Put the knife down and take a green herb, dude. (c) Ruffin Bailey 2001-2021

MPL 2.0 FAQ:

Q16: Is "minified" JavaScript Source Code?
No. Minified JavaScript, while not an "executable" in the software engineering sense of the word, is difficult for humans to read, edit, and modify. As such, it is not "the preferred form for modification" and so it is not Source Code as defined by the license. Therefore, minified JavaScript is the Executable form, and the responsibilities set out in the license for distribution of the Executable form should be met when you distribute minified MPL-licensed JavaScript.

Compare to OOXML. Like interpreted code, you could (and, I believe) should argue that purposely obfuscated human-readable code and standards are operating as executable/proprietary code.

Labels: javascript, licensing, mozilla, ooxml, open

Get Kingsoft Office Professional 2013 (Win) free | The Cheapskate - CNET News:

al_chirico

@Cool_Daddy For me, I like being able to actually read the data file. The xxxX formated files are XML files. So, If you know XML or HTML, you can just search the file for something you're looking for. This is especially helpful if you're passing a xxxX file to another program. You can just deconstruct the file as input data. Try doing that with an earlier xxx file. Just my 2 cents.

I read through this comment that's essentially in favor of the use of Microsoft's "Office Open XML" file formats and came away with an unexpected take-home. First, why should we care how hard it is to open a .doc file in a text editor at this point? We have plenty of excellent, freeware applications that can do that job for us (AbiWord, though seemingly dead, is still one of my favorites). There's no real practical advantage for having a .doc file in a human readable file format now, is there, minus outliers like, "I just installed my OS and have no internet access and MUST edit the contents of my file in the 'pack-in' text editor!"

But then I shift from the consumer's pov to Microsoft's. If the long game says that proprietary file formats will be broken and provide no (again, long-term) advantage, why bother with them at all? Why not just use XML for your file format? The format's so complex at this point, the degree of obfuscation in XML versions of the files is still tremendous. You're past the point of something simply reproduced -- heck, even MS's Mac Business Unit had a heck of a time pulling it off, and that was an inside job! It's the difference between html made by Seamonkey Composer and html made by Word's "Save As HTML". HTML is supposed to be a nice, human-editable format. Yet one product is pretty easy to edit by hand, and the other nearly impossible. (See also AbiWord's Save As HTML for docs; beautiful stuff.)

So why move from bytecode to XML if you're Microsoft? XML might be a better tool for serializing docs, and puts contracts with governments that demand "free and open" (and therefore, ostensibly, forward compatible and archival) formats back on the table and kill the "open" movement flat.

And there's really no difference to the end user now either, minus those guys who post to CNET and claim to be opening/editing their docs in Notepad. ;^)

Microsoft moving to XML seems better, but, in the end, holds the status quo. (C#'s release as an open standard, however, had much different, more beneficial results. Wonder if that was expected?)

Labels: microsoft, ooxml, open, xml

title: Put the knife down and take a green herb, dude.	descrip: One feller's views on the state of everyday computer science & its application (and now, OTHER STUFF) who isn't rich enough to shell out for www.myfreakinfirst-andlast-name.com Using 89% of the same design the blog had in 2001.
FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY!!! Back-up your data and, when you bike, always wear white. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Affiliate links in green.
x MarkUpDown is the best Markdown editor for professionals on Windows 10. It includes two-pane live preview, in-app uploads to imgur for image hosting, and MultiMarkdown table support. Features you won't find anywhere else include... MarkUpDown Multiline Table & Bootstrap Grid support. Beautiful Easy Actions that keep the Markdown flowing. HTML paste to paste HTML source into your documents. You've wasted more than $15 of your time looking for a great Markdown editor. Stop looking. MarkUpDown is the app you're looking for. Learn more or head over to the 'Store now!

Thursday, November 14, 2013
"Microsoft’s OpenXML SDK is [like]... Assembly language" Making OpenXML Easy with ClosedXML: Microsoft’s OpenXML SDK is to OpenXML documents like the Assembly language is to processors. You can use it to get your work done but it takes a tremendous amount of effort to do anything. Exceptionally well put. It's open qua all in XML, but only in the manner that Microsoft Word is open because I can see its bytecodes. Labels: hats of money, microsoft, ooxml, open posted by ruffin at 11/14/2013 02:20:00 PM

Saturday, October 05, 2013
Arguing that minimized JavaScript is in "Executable form" MPL 2.0 FAQ: Q16: Is "minified" JavaScript Source Code? No. Minified JavaScript, while not an "executable" in the software engineering sense of the word, is difficult for humans to read, edit, and modify. As such, it is not "the preferred form for modification" and so it is not Source Code as defined by the license. Therefore, minified JavaScript is the Executable form, and the responsibilities set out in the license for distribution of the Executable form should be met when you distribute minified MPL-licensed JavaScript. Compare to OOXML. Like interpreted code, you could (and, I believe) should argue that purposely obfuscated human-readable code and standards are operating as executable/proprietary code. Labels: javascript, licensing, mozilla, ooxml, open posted by ruffin at 10/05/2013 06:05:00 PM

Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Why use mashed proprietary when you can obfuscate? Get Kingsoft Office Professional 2013 (Win) free \| The Cheapskate - CNET News: al_chirico @Cool_Daddy For me, I like being able to actually read the data file. The xxxX formated files are XML files. So, If you know XML or HTML, you can just search the file for something you're looking for. This is especially helpful if you're passing a xxxX file to another program. You can just deconstruct the file as input data. Try doing that with an earlier xxx file. Just my 2 cents. I read through this comment that's essentially in favor of the use of Microsoft's "Office Open XML" file formats and came away with an unexpected take-home. First, why should we care how hard it is to open a .doc file in a text editor at this point? We have plenty of excellent, freeware applications that can do that job for us (AbiWord, though seemingly dead, is still one of my favorites). There's no real practical advantage for having a .doc file in a human readable file format now, is there, minus outliers like, "I just installed my OS and have no internet access and MUST edit the contents of my file in the 'pack-in' text editor!" But then I shift from the consumer's pov to Microsoft's. If the long game says that proprietary file formats will be broken and provide no (again, long-term) advantage, why bother with them at all? Why not just use XML for your file format? The format's so complex at this point, the degree of obfuscation in XML versions of the files is still tremendous. You're past the point of something simply reproduced -- heck, even MS's Mac Business Unit had a heck of a time pulling it off, and that was an inside job! It's the difference between html made by Seamonkey Composer and html made by Word's "Save As HTML". HTML is supposed to be a nice, human-editable format. Yet one product is pretty easy to edit by hand, and the other nearly impossible. (See also AbiWord's Save As HTML for docs; beautiful stuff.) So why move from bytecode to XML if you're Microsoft? XML might be a better tool for serializing docs, and puts contracts with governments that demand "free and open" (and therefore, ostensibly, forward compatible and archival) formats back on the table and kill the "open" movement flat. And there's really no difference to the end user now either, minus those guys who post to CNET and claim to be opening/editing their docs in Notepad. ;^) Microsoft moving to XML seems better, but, in the end, holds the status quo. (C#'s release as an open standard, however, had much different, more beneficial results. Wonder if that was expected?) Labels: microsoft, ooxml, open, xml posted by ruffin at 9/18/2013 01:03:00 PM

<< Older \| Newer >>