3 ms·

Microsoft Word stores XML documents inside a zip archive. There is a detailed specification of the format available: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/

Microsoft Word stores XML documents inside a zip archive. There is a detailed specification of the format available: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_standards/ms-offstandlp/d5784a8b-7070-466b-befa-b7bf3724c6f0 https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/office_standards/...

xaldir 6y ago
I think he was talking about the classic .doc format which was a clusterfuck and not the open XML.
- akie 6y ago
  If I remember correctly the XML format was just an XML-encoded version of the binary counterpart. Including all or most of the bugs and weird hacks.
  - amaccuish 6y ago
    with the previous format being essentially a memory dump, i'd say that's progress
    - alexott 6y ago
      That’s correct - I worked with MS team that documented old formats, and they said that sometimes they don’t have people left who knew what specific struct was intended for - although that was mostly for people PowerPoint and Visio, excel and word was better documented
      - tinus_hn 6y ago
        Actually Excel was the only one that had official, freely available documentation for the old (now legacy) file format.
  - patrec 6y ago
    You don't remember correctly. Word's docx format is far more intelligent than openoffice ODT, despite propaganda to the contrary. With one exception: word's zip files don't have a convenient magic header. The way it works with ODT, and a bunch of other formats is that you put an uncompressed identifier file (`mimetype`) as the first entry inside your zipfile. At byte 30 (of your zipfile) you then get `mimetype$THE_MIMEMETYPE`. This is a nice trick and works for any zip-based format. Sadly, docx does not do that so you have to go by file extension or look at (more of) the contents of the zipfile.
- yoz-y 6y ago
  IIRC the original doc (and xls) formats were unwieldy mainly because of performance requirements. In order to save and load fast they were basically a bunch of binary dumped structs.

xaldir 6y ago

I think he was talking about the classic .doc format which was a clusterfuck and not the open XML.

akie 6y ago
If I remember correctly the XML format was just an XML-encoded version of the binary counterpart. Including all or most of the bugs and weird hacks.
- amaccuish 6y ago
  with the previous format being essentially a memory dump, i'd say that's progress
  - alexott 6y ago
    That’s correct - I worked with MS team that documented old formats, and they said that sometimes they don’t have people left who knew what specific struct was intended for - although that was mostly for people PowerPoint and Visio, excel and word was better documented
    - tinus_hn 6y ago
      Actually Excel was the only one that had official, freely available documentation for the old (now legacy) file format.
- patrec 6y ago
  You don't remember correctly. Word's docx format is far more intelligent than openoffice ODT, despite propaganda to the contrary. With one exception: word's zip files don't have a convenient magic header. The way it works with ODT, and a bunch of other formats is that you put an uncompressed identifier file (`mimetype`) as the first entry inside your zipfile. At byte 30 (of your zipfile) you then get `mimetype$THE_MIMEMETYPE`. This is a nice trick and works for any zip-based format. Sadly, docx does not do that so you have to go by file extension or look at (more of) the contents of the zipfile.
yoz-y 6y ago
IIRC the original doc (and xls) formats were unwieldy mainly because of performance requirements. In order to save and load fast they were basically a bunch of binary dumped structs.