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.
Tell me again why it's called 'Open'XML format if even your own company's software can't read it when it comes out?
Well done. The new document format is supposed to be open, ostensibly to allow non-Microsoft products to read the files. Yet it's a complicated enough format that Microsoft's own Mac Business Unit won't have a translator of any sort for the new standard until several months after its release for Windows.
This sort of "open obfuscation" deserves a closer inspection. Kinda like when I tried to figure out what was going on in Furthurnet's code and couldn't make heads nor tails out of parts of it (I eventually got it to work on Mac Classic by mechanically porting its code, not by figuring out what was going on), open doesn't mean easy to understand. This isn't html, folk, and even MS Word's html is pretty complicated to piece apart.
It's a shame Microsoft has poisoned the word "open" like they have. Their stuff might not be much worse than some open source projects, but here I believe it's much closer to being intentional. Certainly MS did nothing to break the impression that "open" meant they were lifting their Word monopoly and allowing 3rd-party competition. Though I can't fault them for trying to make a buck, their "open" standard's double-speak, as shown by the MacBU's trouble creating converters, is despicable.
posted by ruffin
at 12/12/2006 11:09:00 PM
The postings on this site are [usually] my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any employer, past or present, or other entity. About Our Author