4 ms·

And don't forget the stupid formats used by Office when an open standard already existed.

colejohnson66 6y ago
Office Open XML[0] was created in 2006. In Office 2007, the default save format was changed to the new open format. If they wanted to keep it proprietary, they wouldn’t’ve created Office Open XML, and they wouldn’t’ve made it the default format. It’s my understanding that the reason for their “proprietary” format was because, at the time, there wasn’t really a format that could contain everything Word could do. Also, their proprietary format wasn’t very proprietary; it was reverse engineered, and they did nothing to stop that. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML
- pritambaral 6y ago
  > Office Open XML[0] was created in 2006. In response to the OpenDocument Format, which was released in 2005. > If they wanted to keep it proprietary, they wouldn’t’ve created Office Open XML ... OOXML, when first released, was still pretty proprietary: it was exceedingly complex, far more than the already-existing ODF, at points even requiring reverse engineering of binary blobs and other, not-covered-under-OOXML, Microsoft-proprietary libraries. For example: "OpenXML on the other hand, is a high-level specification which describes the high level envelopes used to embed binary objects which are included in the content. The content itself contains the binary code which can call any function in any Microsoft library and has all permissions of the person opening the document." [0] It felt a lot like a hurried piece of work rushed through under short notice and short schedules. In fact, Microsoft even tried to rush through an ISO standardisation for OOXML, a process during which it did not hesitate from maligning and harassing national bodies [1] and academics [2] who reviewed OOXML poorly against the ODF. The very link you cited covers a few of the issues with the standardisation process: [3]. > Also, their proprietary format wasn’t very proprietary; it was reverse engineered, and they did nothing to stop that. That is NOT the definition of 'proprietary'. Reverse engineering is legally protected irrespective of copyright and licensing. ---- 0: https://slated.org/ooxml_dissecting_the_binary_blob_problem https://slated.org/ooxml_dissecting_the_binary_blob_problem 1: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2654142/iso-publishes-office-open-xml-specification.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/2654142/iso-publishes-offi... 2: http://deepakphatak.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-is.html http://deepakphatak.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-is.html 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Standardization_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Standardizatio...

Office Open XML[0] was created in 2006. In Office 2007, the default save format was changed to the new open format. If they wanted to keep it proprietary, they wouldn’t’ve created Office Open XML, and they wouldn’t’ve made it the default format. It’s my understanding that the reason for their “proprietary” format was because, at the time, there wasn’t really a format that could contain everything Word could do. Also, their proprietary format wasn’t very proprietary; it was reverse engineered, and they did nothing to stop that. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML

pritambaral 6y ago
> Office Open XML[0] was created in 2006. In response to the OpenDocument Format, which was released in 2005. > If they wanted to keep it proprietary, they wouldn’t’ve created Office Open XML ... OOXML, when first released, was still pretty proprietary: it was exceedingly complex, far more than the already-existing ODF, at points even requiring reverse engineering of binary blobs and other, not-covered-under-OOXML, Microsoft-proprietary libraries. For example: "OpenXML on the other hand, is a high-level specification which describes the high level envelopes used to embed binary objects which are included in the content. The content itself contains the binary code which can call any function in any Microsoft library and has all permissions of the person opening the document." [0] It felt a lot like a hurried piece of work rushed through under short notice and short schedules. In fact, Microsoft even tried to rush through an ISO standardisation for OOXML, a process during which it did not hesitate from maligning and harassing national bodies [1] and academics [2] who reviewed OOXML poorly against the ODF. The very link you cited covers a few of the issues with the standardisation process: [3]. > Also, their proprietary format wasn’t very proprietary; it was reverse engineered, and they did nothing to stop that. That is NOT the definition of 'proprietary'. Reverse engineering is legally protected irrespective of copyright and licensing. ---- 0: https://slated.org/ooxml_dissecting_the_binary_blob_problem https://slated.org/ooxml_dissecting_the_binary_blob_problem 1: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2654142/iso-publishes-office-open-xml-specification.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/2654142/iso-publishes-offi... 2: http://deepakphatak.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-is.html http://deepakphatak.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-is.html 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Standardization_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML#Standardizatio...