On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 22:38 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 12:13:11PM +1100, clancy_1@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:18:18 +0000, ash@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ashley > > Sheridan) wrote: > > > > >On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 10:16 +1100, Ross McKay wrote: > > > > > ........... > > > > > >There's a good reason for OpenOffice having some difficulties with MS > > >Office documents. Back when MS rushed through getting their document > > >standard ratified by ISO (which itself is a whole other story) they > > >didn't explain all the details quite as well as they might have. Later > > >on, MS found they were having some difficulty following their own > > >'standard' and so altered it in various ways in Office2007. Needless to > > >say, ISO weren't too happy when MS asked if they could just 'change the > > >specs' for their file format, and quite rightly refused to do so. > > > > > >In short, this means that there is a MS ISO standard that MS is the only > > >one not trying to follow, and software like OpenOffice is left to > > >reverse engineering the format again. > > > > When the first Word Macro virus appeared in the early 90s, the AV industry > > approached > > Microsoft for the specifications of the internal structure of the Word > > documents. After > > some discussion Microsoft agreed to make these available to firms who > > signed an NDA. > > Several large firms did so, but when they got the specifications they > > immediately > > discovered that they bore very little relation to the actual documents. When > > Microsoft was > > approached about this their reply was "Well, that's all we've got!" > > > > The industry had to run a joint program to reverse engineer the > > specifications before they > > could work out how to remove the virus. > > > > The story that went around was that with each update Microsoft hired a > > new batch of young > > graduates <aside>they don't have preconceived notions (a.k.a. experience), > > and they don't > > have extravagant ideas of their own worth</aside>, told them vaguely what > > they wanted, and > > left them to it. Then, as soon as they had something that sort of worked, > > they let them go > > again. So there was no continuity, no documentation, no hope of bug fixes, > > and very little > > likelihood that the next update would be improved in any meaningful sense. > > I have seen > > nothing to suggest that anything has changed. > > I suspect any lack of continuity was more due to the shifting of > personnel internally to differing projects, rather than the hiring of > all new coders each time. > > But more importantly, I suspect MS coders just coded without writing any > docs. Coders usually suck at documentation and will avoid it unless > forced. And if forced to write docs, the docs were just a toss-off no > one ever actually looked at. > > Microsoft's attitude, I'm sure was, "Why should we care about other > players in the market? Just buy our crap and you won't have to worry > about our formats." (Except until the next upgrade.) > > I think ISO's policy should be that if you're a company forwarding a > standard, your off-the-shelf software should verifiably duplicate that > standard. Otherwise, go pound sand. Same if you're a community proposing > a standard. Produce some software which adheres to that standard or shut > up. > > Paul > > -- > Paul M. Foster > Microsofts XML format should never have been made an ISO standard anyway. There's a bit of a conspiracy behind how they managed it, including large amounts of money and trade agreements trading hands, as well as secret voting... Thanks, Ash http://www.ashleysheridan.co.uk
