4 ms·

> IIRC there was a lot of FUD simply because it came from Microsoft. It was annoying because we already had odt as open format and OOXML was reported to be mor

by josefx 3y ago

> IIRC there was a lot of FUD simply because it came from Microsoft. It was annoying because we already had odt as open format and OOXML was reported to be more of a text dump of what Microsoft did in binary than a standard meant for interoperability. > But I can read them on my Linux machine and you don't need a byte of non-free software for it, and I had a lot more trouble with the .doc files they published 20 years ago, so. OpenOffice was already better at reading old doc files than Microsoft Word was well before OOXML was a thing. Meanwhile my last few attempts to deal with power point or excel sheets where still a gigantic mess of missing content.

arp242 3y ago
> text dump of what Microsoft did in binary than a standard meant for interoperability. Isn't it all XML based? > OpenOffice was already better at reading old doc files than Microsoft Word was well before OOXML was a thing. It's been a long time, but that was certainly not my experience from what I recall; I had a lot of trouble with this. And writing files and then expecting Word users to be able to read them well was another source of problems. And look, maybe ODT would have been better; but that ship has sailed, and OOXML seems free for all intents and purposes, even though perhaps it's not 100% ideal. This is just not something that's all that important today.
- ptx 3y ago
  > Isn't it all XML based? That doesn't help much when the XML format consists of elements like "footnoteLayoutLikeWW8" which "specifies that applications shall emulate the behavior of a previously existing word processing application (Microsoft Word 6.x/95/97)" [1]. I think this kind of thing is what the parent comment was referring to. [1] https://www.consortiuminfo.org/opendocument-and-ooxml/the-contradictory-nature-of-ooxml/ https://www.consortiuminfo.org/opendocument-and-ooxml/the-co...
  - arp242 3y ago
    Ah, I didn't know that! It seems like they're only there for compatibility and not in new documents(?) Either way, it seems like fighting yesterday's battle.

by josefx 3y ago

arp242 3y ago

> text dump of what Microsoft did in binary than a standard meant for interoperability. Isn't it all XML based? > OpenOffice was already better at reading old doc files than Microsoft Word was well before OOXML was a thing. It's been a long time, but that was certainly not my experience from what I recall; I had a lot of trouble with this. And writing files and then expecting Word users to be able to read them well was another source of problems. And look, maybe ODT would have been better; but that ship has sailed, and OOXML seems free for all intents and purposes, even though perhaps it's not 100% ideal. This is just not something that's all that important today.

ptx 3y ago
> Isn't it all XML based? That doesn't help much when the XML format consists of elements like "footnoteLayoutLikeWW8" which "specifies that applications shall emulate the behavior of a previously existing word processing application (Microsoft Word 6.x/95/97)" [1]. I think this kind of thing is what the parent comment was referring to. [1] https://www.consortiuminfo.org/opendocument-and-ooxml/the-contradictory-nature-of-ooxml/ https://www.consortiuminfo.org/opendocument-and-ooxml/the-co...
- arp242 3y ago
  Ah, I didn't know that! It seems like they're only there for compatibility and not in new documents(?) Either way, it seems like fighting yesterday's battle.