4 ms·
The advice is that it should only exist in machine-readable form and the reason why Microsoft does it this way is to ensure lock-in. See also MSSQL, for which t
by zimablue 8y ago
The advice is that it should only exist in machine-readable form and the reason why Microsoft does it this way is to ensure lock-in. See also MSSQL, for which there exists no complete machine-readable spec ANYWHERE (as far as I could tell when I spent 2 days looking a few years ago).
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- 13of40 8y ago>lock-in A company that spends millions of dollars employing technical writers to publicly document a format probably isn't conspiring to keep that format secret. Maybe the macaronis aren't the shape you wanted but you got the macaronis.
- scarejunba 8y agoIIRC it was in response to many government sources requiring open formats (a good instinct) so just because they did it doesn’t mean they wanted to. They may have been forced to, and done the minimum as a result.
- userbinator 8y agoI believe it was the antitrust lawsuits that forced them too, and it shows; if you look at all the MS protocol/format documents and compare them to something like RFCs and ITU/IEEE/ANSI standards, the MS docs are noticeably harder to read with their verbosity, weird syntax notations and conventions, and almost look as if they were deliberately obfuscated.