3 ms·

Back in 2007 I was a proponent of the 'No-OOXML' movement [1], which outlined several objections (linked in the left margin on their page), some technical, some

by niftich 10y ago

Back in 2007 I was a proponent of the 'No-OOXML' movement [1], which outlined several objections (linked in the left margin on their page), some technical, some political, to the ISO standardization process of the new XML formats. In my opinion, the new formats are little more than XMLified representations of implementation details of how MS Office works; there is a distinct proliferation of elements that aren't purely semantic, and an awkward-but-inconsistent lack of separation of structure from presentation. But I'm not an expert on the binary formats nor the inner workings of their applications. Though my opinions remain unchanged after 9 years, in retrospect I do like that the new formats are documented by a true standards body, and are interoperable not just by reverse-engineering a closed format. [1] http://noooxml.wikidot.com/start http://noooxml.wikidot.com/start

yuhong 10y ago
I once suggested getting rid of the name and the ISO "standard" but keeping the file format itself in a poorly written blog article.
0x0 10y ago
The best example on how this "just serialize our program's operations" style of file formats turned out crazy was the WMF exploit. Merely hovering over a malicious wmf file in explorer would trigger the payload. And the bug was literally a GDI method being played back which was "call my callback function". https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/markrussinovich/2006/01/18/inside-the-wmf-backdoor/ https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/markrussinovich/2006/01/...
jordigh 10y ago
But the old formats are also (mostly) documented by Microsoft. Only once did I have to reverse-engineer a magic number, and only to get something working with Excel 97: http://phpexcel.codeplex.com/discussions/71551 http://phpexcel.codeplex.com/discussions/71551 For the most part, with Word I get better compatibility in LO with the old binary formats than with OOXML. If someone sends me .docx and it looks garbled, it's easier to ask them to resave as .doc than to try to get them to produce .odt
- chris_wot 10y ago
  If you have the time, you should consider filing a bug report.
frik 10y ago
> Documented by true standard body Is ECMA that "true", I don't know. At least they document a JavaScript without "JavaScript" in its name. MS Office (2010 at least) isn't compatible with the standard text. Is there even a MS Office nowadays that's better? Also Office 2010, dispite support, is hostile to OpenDocument format - opening a document gives you warnings about legacy format and what not. The OOXML standatisation process was very controversial and left a bad taste around MS and ECMA Switzerland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open...
- davidgerard 10y ago
  ECMA 376 is explicitly intended as documentation of what Office 2007 does. Michael Meeks of LO (then at Novell) worked on it and says it did this job: https://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2014-02-26-cabinet-office.html#tc45 https://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2014-02-26-cabinet-of... But in practice there's no such thing as "OOXML" - there's only what Office 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2016 happen to do. So if you want to work with the stuff, you verify everything. The standard is, like so much Microsoft documentation, best treated as based-on-a-true-story fiction with an unreliable narrator.

by niftich 10y ago

yuhong 10y ago

I once suggested getting rid of the name and the ISO "standard" but keeping the file format itself in a poorly written blog article.

0x0 10y ago

The best example on how this "just serialize our program's operations" style of file formats turned out crazy was the WMF exploit. Merely hovering over a malicious wmf file in explorer would trigger the payload. And the bug was literally a GDI method being played back which was "call my callback function". https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/markrussinovich/2006/01/18/inside-the-wmf-backdoor/ https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/markrussinovich/2006/01/...

jordigh 10y ago

But the old formats are also (mostly) documented by Microsoft. Only once did I have to reverse-engineer a magic number, and only to get something working with Excel 97: http://phpexcel.codeplex.com/discussions/71551 http://phpexcel.codeplex.com/discussions/71551 For the most part, with Word I get better compatibility in LO with the old binary formats than with OOXML. If someone sends me .docx and it looks garbled, it's easier to ask them to resave as .doc than to try to get them to produce .odt

chris_wot 10y ago
If you have the time, you should consider filing a bug report.

frik 10y ago

> Documented by true standard body Is ECMA that "true", I don't know. At least they document a JavaScript without "JavaScript" in its name. MS Office (2010 at least) isn't compatible with the standard text. Is there even a MS Office nowadays that's better? Also Office 2010, dispite support, is hostile to OpenDocument format - opening a document gives you warnings about legacy format and what not. The OOXML standatisation process was very controversial and left a bad taste around MS and ECMA Switzerland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open...

davidgerard 10y ago
ECMA 376 is explicitly intended as documentation of what Office 2007 does. Michael Meeks of LO (then at Novell) worked on it and says it did this job: https://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2014-02-26-cabinet-office.html#tc45 https://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2014-02-26-cabinet-of... But in practice there's no such thing as "OOXML" - there's only what Office 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2016 happen to do. So if you want to work with the stuff, you verify everything. The standard is, like so much Microsoft documentation, best treated as based-on-a-true-story fiction with an unreliable narrator.