[News] [Rival] Technical Review of OOXML Shows How Horrid It Is
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
comp.os.linux.advocacy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

comp.os.linux.advocacy Profile…
 Up
[News] [Rival] Technical Review of OOXML Shows How Horrid It Is         


Author: Roy Schestowitz
Date: Feb 20, 2008 15:08

OOXML: What's the big deal?

,----[ Quote ]
| If Microsoft wants OOXML to be taken seriously as a proposal for a document
| standard, only one option is on the table. Rather than try to develop a
| specification with every possible...
Show full article (4.25Kb)
162 Comments
Re: [News] [Rival] Technical Review of OOXML Shows How Horrid It Is         


Author: Linonut
Date: Feb 20, 2008 19:06

* Roy Schestowitz peremptorily fired off this memo:

Here's the take-home message from that article:

OK, I promised some workarounds. The good news is that for almost all
common applications, trying to read or write the Office binary file
formats is the wrong decision. There are two major alternatives you
should seriously consider: letting Office do the work, or using file
formats that are easier to write.

Let Office do the heavy work for you. Word and Excel have extremely
complete object models, available via COM Automation, which allow you
to programmatically do anything. In many situations, you are better
off reusing the code inside Office rather than trying to reimplement
it. . . .

2. Same as above, but your web hosting environment is Linux. Buy
one Windows 2003 server, install a fully licensed copy of Word
on it, and build a little web service that does the work. Half
a day of work with C# and ASP.NET.

. . .
Show full article (3.42Kb)
no comments
Re: [News] [Rival] Technical Review of OOXML Shows How Horrid It Is         


Author: Tom Shelton
Date: Feb 20, 2008 19:15

On 2008-02-20, Linonut wrote:
> * Roy Schestowitz peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>
> Here's the take-home message from that article:
>
> OK, I promised some workarounds. The good news is that for almost all
> common applications, trying to read or write the Office binary file
> formats is the wrong decision. There are two major alternatives you
> should seriously consider: letting Office do the work, or using file
> formats that are easier to write.
>
> Let Office do the heavy work for you. Word and Excel have extremely
> complete object models, available via COM Automation, which allow you
> to programmatically do anything. In many situations, you are better
> off reusing the code inside Office rather than trying to reimplement
> it. . . .
>
> 2. Same as above, but your web hosting environment is Linux. Buy ...
Show full article (1.99Kb)
no comments
Re: [News] [Rival] Technical Review of OOXML Shows How Horrid It Is         


Author: Linonut
Date: Feb 20, 2008 21:04

* Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:
> If your going to use word 2003/07, it is really, really easy to write
> wordml. I know, I just did this (converting wordml into other document
> formats).

What do you mean? Writing to WordML and reading into OpenOffice?

What applications read WordML?
> It's even easier to just use wordml. RTF works as well, especially with
> older versions of office. Yes, I've done this too :)

As I noted, at least with OpenOffice, its faster, more efficient, and
more reliable to do I/O with the DOC format than the RTF format.

I don't have access (heh heh) to WordML. How well does it work with OO?

--
One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
no comments
Re: [News] [Rival] Technical Review of OOXML Shows How Horrid It Is         


Author: Tom Shelton
Date: Feb 20, 2008 21:21

On 2008-02-20, Linonut wrote:
> * Tom Shelton peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> If your going to use word 2003/07, it is really, really easy to write
>> wordml. I know, I just did this (converting wordml into other document
>> formats).
>
> What do you mean? Writing to WordML and reading into OpenOffice?
>
> What applications read WordML?
>

I just thought it was talking about generating office documents -
since it was talking about using office automation. I didn't read it
all that carefully. I was just commenting, it's easier to just generate
WordML if you going to be dealing with office 2003/7.

And as for what apps? Mine for one - since it takes WordML and converts
it to a XAML FlowDocument for use in WPF applicaitons.
Show full article (1.23Kb)
no comments
So does ODF, Roy         


Author: Tim Smith
Date: Feb 20, 2008 21:43

In article <4746183.MfqOW9RJhE@schestowitz.com>,
Roy Schestowitz schestowitz.com> wrote:
> This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> |
> | > | Type="http://.../customProperty" Target="CustomProperty.bin"/>
> |

> |
> | [...]
> |
> | Conclusion: Since there is no requirement on the format of the content, any
> | vendor can put its proprietary binary extensions in there.
> |
> | Good Bye Interoperability!
> `----
>
> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41994/good-bye-interoperability-3-with-binaries
> -inside ...
Show full article (0.75Kb)
no comments
Re: So does ODF, Roy         


Author: Moshe Goldfarb
Date: Feb 20, 2008 22:11

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:43:59 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
Show full article (1.10Kb)
no comments
Re: So does ODF, Roy         


Author: Linonut
Date: Feb 21, 2008 14:13

* Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
> In article <4746183.MfqOW9RJhE@schestowitz.com>,
> Roy Schestowitz schestowitz.com> wrote:
>> This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.
>>
>> | Good Bye Interoperability!
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41994/good-bye-interoperability-3-with-binaries
>> -inside
>
> ODF also supports arbitrary vendor binary data, Roy. Haven't you read
> the ODF spec?

Somehow, I worry about binary format from Sun and other vendors less
than I worry about them from our local predatory monopoly.

--
There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
no comments
Re: So does ODF, Roy         


Author: Roy Schestowitz
Date: Feb 21, 2008 14:44

____/ Linonut on Thursday 21 February 2008 13:13 : \____
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In article <4746183.MfqOW9RJhE@schestowitz.com>,
>> Roy Schestowitz schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>> This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.
>>>
>>> | Good Bye Interoperability!
>>> `----
>>>
>>>
>>> -inside
>>
>> ODF also supports arbitrary vendor binary data, Roy. Haven't you read
>> the ODF spec?
>
> Somehow, I worry about binary format from Sun and other vendors less
> than I worry about them from our local predatory monopoly.
Show full article (1.18Kb)
no comments
Re: So does ODF, Roy         


Author: Jesper Lund Stocholm
Date: Feb 21, 2008 15:21

Linonut skrev:
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> In article <4746183.MfqOW9RJhE@schestowitz.com>,
>> Roy Schestowitz schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>> This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.
>>>
>>> | Good Bye Interoperability!
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41994/good-bye-interoperability-3-with-binaries
>>> -inside
>> ODF also supports arbitrary vendor binary data, Roy. Haven't you read
>> the ODF spec?
>
> Somehow, I worry about binary format from Sun and other vendors less
> than I worry about them from our local predatory monopoly.
>

The issue from the article is not security but interoperability.
Show full article (0.72Kb)
no comments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9