Ashley Sheridan wrote: > 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... > There was a great article in the NYT about microsoft from Dick Brass (a former Vice President) that's well worth a read: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html regards :) -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
