7 ms·

This might be a funny quip, but I disagree. Implementing anything is hard, and weird bugs creep in. I've never seen any program without bugs. So it's pretty dis

by edanm 16y ago

This might be a funny quip, but I disagree. Implementing anything is hard, and weird bugs creep in. I've never seen any program without bugs. So it's pretty disingenuous to take one bug in Word and say that it shows there's something wrong with Open XML.

axod 16y ago
Over-engineering increases the likelihood of bugs. Simple and elegant = less bugs. XML is the epitome of over engineering.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  Of all the objectionable things about Microsoft's Office Open XML, the (mis-)use of XML is fairly far down the list. Trying to create a bug-compatible version of .doc is hard, as the sterling efforts of OpenOffice and others have shown. An attempt to create one in XML, by the very people who were best placed to just document the original format is way beyond good or bad engineering.
  - contextfree 16y ago
    They did publish documentation for the original formats (iirc around the same time they published the new XML formats), btw.
    - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
      It was a few years later on, after some wrangling with the EU about their monopoly status.
- wladimir 16y ago
  Representing documents should actually be one of the uses XML is suited for, and was the original intent. Prime example: HTML
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    HTML predates XML by a couple years. HTML is losely based on SGML.
rbanffy 16y ago
> Implementing anything is hard Come on. Implementing something you invented should be easy. I would understand if the [Open|Libre]Office folks got it wrong, but Microsoft? The same company that basically discredited ISO (and badly damaged its function afterwards) in order to standardize this monstrosity? To not even bother to implement its botched bogus standard correctly is beyond insulting. And yes, of all things wrong in MS Office Open XML, the bugs are the least important.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- edanm 16y ago
  "To not even bother to implement its botched bogus standard correctly is beyond insulting" I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you're saying. It's a bug. Bugs happen. A programmer somewhere made a mistake. How is that the same as "not bothering to implement" the standard?
- mkr-hn 16y ago
  There's a bug somewhere in Open/LibreOffice where an old ODT file opened in a new version loses spell checker support, and no tinkering with dictionaries will fix it. It's also carried through a copy and paste. And it happens in Word 2010 when I try to open the same ODT file. Bugs happen.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > Bugs happen. But one could assume they could, at least, implement correctly something they invented.
    - mkr-hn 16y ago
      That doesn't seem like a good thing to assume. Every invention has issues.
    - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
      This comment really make me wonder if you have coded on a large project with a significant group of people. Building an iPhone app is nearly impossible for a single coder to get 100% right, where they have massive control of everything. Add the heterogenous environment of Windows and dozens of programming groups trying to come together, and it is nonsensical to say "they could, at least, implement correctly something they invented." Software is way harder than that.

by edanm 16y ago

axod 16y ago

Over-engineering increases the likelihood of bugs. Simple and elegant = less bugs. XML is the epitome of over engineering.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Of all the objectionable things about Microsoft's Office Open XML, the (mis-)use of XML is fairly far down the list. Trying to create a bug-compatible version of .doc is hard, as the sterling efforts of OpenOffice and others have shown. An attempt to create one in XML, by the very people who were best placed to just document the original format is way beyond good or bad engineering.
- contextfree 16y ago
  They did publish documentation for the original formats (iirc around the same time they published the new XML formats), btw.
  - ZeroGravitas 16y ago
    It was a few years later on, after some wrangling with the EU about their monopoly status.
wladimir 16y ago
Representing documents should actually be one of the uses XML is suited for, and was the original intent. Prime example: HTML
- rbanffy 16y ago
  HTML predates XML by a couple years. HTML is losely based on SGML.

rbanffy 16y ago

> Implementing anything is hard Come on. Implementing something you invented should be easy. I would understand if the [Open|Libre]Office folks got it wrong, but Microsoft? The same company that basically discredited ISO (and badly damaged its function afterwards) in order to standardize this monstrosity? To not even bother to implement its botched bogus standard correctly is beyond insulting. And yes, of all things wrong in MS Office Open XML, the bugs are the least important.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
edanm 16y ago
"To not even bother to implement its botched bogus standard correctly is beyond insulting" I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you're saying. It's a bug. Bugs happen. A programmer somewhere made a mistake. How is that the same as "not bothering to implement" the standard?
mkr-hn 16y ago
There's a bug somewhere in Open/LibreOffice where an old ODT file opened in a new version loses spell checker support, and no tinkering with dictionaries will fix it. It's also carried through a copy and paste. And it happens in Word 2010 when I try to open the same ODT file. Bugs happen.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > Bugs happen. But one could assume they could, at least, implement correctly something they invented.
  - mkr-hn 16y ago
    That doesn't seem like a good thing to assume. Every invention has issues.
  - SoftwareMaven 16y ago
    This comment really make me wonder if you have coded on a large project with a significant group of people. Building an iPhone app is nearly impossible for a single coder to get 100% right, where they have massive control of everything. Add the heterogenous environment of Windows and dozens of programming groups trying to come together, and it is nonsensical to say "they could, at least, implement correctly something they invented." Software is way harder than that.