Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Sat, 20 May 2006 05:27:15 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>| And, at this point, eWEEK's ace reporter Peter Galli quotes a
>>| Microsoft spokesperson as saying, "And this is just the first draft."
>>| This isn't a standard; it's a straitjacket.
> Man, there is simply no pleasing some people. The entire POINT of a
> standard is to define things in such detail that a 100% compatible
> implementation can be made.
> Now, they're complaining that the standard is too tightly defined, and
> that it eschews "innovation", something which, by definition, cannot be
> applied to a standard.
> He also conveniently ignores the fact that ODF is also based on an
> existing product.
A standard for a document format is effectively an interface specification.
An interface specification should NEVER be a reflection of an
implementation. Rather, it should be an abstraction layer over which
multiple implementations can act.
Of course, your masters in Redmond don't understand this, which is why
Windows is the mess that it is. You of course, being a true believer in the
1 Microsoft Way will continue to espouse the party line, until the party
either realizes how wrong it is or (less likely) goes broke.
This doesn't change the fact that the MSWord document format is tightly tied
to the implementation. This is of course good for keeping away the
competition, but makes it a very bad candidate for a standard. The
Microsoft XML format appears to just be a wrapper around the existing
document formats. As such, this makes it a very poor candidate for a
standard. This is because it more or less defines an implementation and not
an abstract interface.
I don't expect you to understand any of this, because you refuse to take off
your Microsoft coloured goggles and truly understand computing principles.