ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy? - Linux

This is a discussion on ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy? - Linux ; On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:23:48 -0500, Linonut wrote: > It's always puzzled me as to the fracas about a document format > supporting the way functions do things. It is a document, not a > calculation engine. The application ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 86

Thread: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

  1. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:23:48 -0500, Linonut wrote:

    > It's always puzzled me as to the fracas about a document format
    > supporting the way functions do things. It is a document, not a
    > calculation engine. The application should be defining the functions'
    > implementation in terms of proven, time-tested algorithms.


    Think of it like storing dates. If you don't know the that a date value
    uses 1900 as an epoch and refers to milliseconds since that, you are
    screwed. You could read in data produced by arbitrary applications that
    use different epochs and different precision and all your dates are off.

    The format has to define the expectations of the application, or else data
    saved cannot be interoperable. ODF 1.0 just stores functions as text,
    which means each application is left to create it's own functions, and if
    two applications store the function name differently, then neither
    understands what the other is trying to do.

    Remember, that in spreadsheets, the function is part of the data as well.

    > The only support for a function in the format that would be needed would
    > be a code for the function.


    But in ODF, they didn't use codes. The used Text representations of the
    function. SIN(), COS(), etc.. which is fine for common functions, but what
    about less common ones?

    The format has to specify this or there is no interoperability.

    > Point (2) I don't understand. I thought a cell-reference is a
    > cell-reference is a cell-reference.


    Yeah, i'm not sure what he means by that either.

    > Point (3) is absolutely bizarre.


    He's saying that OOo doesn't fully implement ODF I think.

  2. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On 2008-02-23, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:23:48 -0500, Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> It's always puzzled me as to the fracas about a document format
    >> supporting the way functions do things. It is a document, not a
    >> calculation engine. The application should be defining the functions'
    >> implementation in terms of proven, time-tested algorithms.


    It's like SQL standards.

    You have data structure.
    Concepts of references between data.
    And standard operators.

    An ANSI spreadsheet format should be like ANSI SQL.

    >
    > Think of it like storing dates. If you don't know the that a date value
    > uses 1900 as an epoch and refers to milliseconds since that, you are
    > screwed. You could read in data produced by arbitrary applications that
    > use different epochs and different precision and all your dates are off.

    [deletia]

    --
    How did irc manage to get so pretentious about civility |||
    of discourse when it doesn't even allow for the free and / | \
    open exchange of ideas?

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  3. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?


    > Point (2) I don't understand. I thought a cell-reference is a
    > cell-reference is a cell-reference.


    It is common in spreadsheets to have the "same" formula repeating
    hundreds, if not thousands of
    times. The meaning of "same" is a bit special, though. For example,
    column A might contain
    some numbers, B1 could be =(A1+1)^$E$1-1; B2 could be =(B1+1)^$E$1-1.
    The latter two would
    be considered the same formula because the A-cell that they refer to
    in both cases is the one to
    the left.

    The internal representation of the formulas should be shared. That
    saves *massive* amounts of
    memory in real-life spreadsheets. ODF does not support this. In
    other words, you have to parse
    the same expression thousands of times and then check to see if you
    have seen the resulting
    tree before. Not good.

    > Point (3) is absolutely bizarre.


    No spreadsheet that I know of implements anywhere near the full
    standard, so in practice one
    has to reverse engineer OO.o to figure out what parts can be used.


    Morten Welinder
    terra@gnome.org

  4. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    Linonut espoused:
    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> >> We could have one format that would have truly become universal. Oh
    >>> >> well, I forgot--choice is good, so I guess it is supposed to be good
    >>> >> that people will have to deal with two formats for the foreseeable
    >>> >> future.
    >>> >
    >>> > Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
    >>> > legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
    >>>
    >>> This is the illusion of choice, not real choice. If it were a choice
    >>> between two fully open file formats, then it would simply be a matter of
    >>> which one became superior for the job. Considering the phenomenon of

    >>
    >> Well, then, maybe people could start lobbying to make ODF open, so we'll
    >> have two open file formats?

    >
    > ODF already made it through ISO.
    >


    OOXML is *not* an open file format, ODF is. This is yet more
    shillcosystem spin.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  5. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:14:06 -0600,
    Tom Shelton wrote:
    > On 2008-02-22, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:59 +0100,
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> Linonut writes:
    >>>
    >>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In article ,
    >>>>> alt wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
    >>>>>> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
    >>>>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
    >>>>> format.
    >>>>
    >>>> Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
    >>>> those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
    >>>> system and proprietary Word processor around.
    >>>
    >>> LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
    >>> never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
    >>> uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.
    >>>

    >>
    >> makes no sense. We are discussing document formats, not the OS. Are you
    >> saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for something?
    >>

    >
    > They might - for OLE automation. In other words, there are lots of
    > things besides other documents that can be embedded in a word doc.
    >


    So not only do you have to have the right version of MS-Office, but the
    right version of MS-Windows too? "Sorry, you can't read that document,
    please buy a new computer first"


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHwUCrd90bcYOAWPYRAvVYAJ4sjAt7Lzp65AtXuyhufI BuXoJSGwCgpK8E
    QeQZauOCDdbjTkmgF+j87z8=
    =uYjv
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an
    incompetent slacker.

  6. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:22:06 +0100,
    Hadron wrote:
    > Tom Shelton writes:
    >
    >> On 2008-02-22, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>>
    >>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:59 +0100,
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>> Linonut writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> In article ,
    >>>>>> alt wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
    >>>>>>> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
    >>>>>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
    >>>>>> format.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Where's the 'need' for that? You want to have access to all features of
    >>>>> those old documents? Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
    >>>>> system and proprietary Word processor around.
    >>>>
    >>>> LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
    >>>> never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
    >>>> uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> makes no sense. We are discussing document formats, not the OS. Are you
    >>> saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for something?
    >>>

    >>
    >> They might - for OLE automation. In other words, there are lots of
    >> things besides other documents that can be embedded in a word doc.

    >
    > For *goodness* sake. It must even be something as simple as only
    > licensing ONE version of windows and wanting to cut and paste for friks
    > sake.


    what are you babbling about now?

    Are you saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for
    something? the *format* not MS-Office itself.

    Ora re you posting while stoned or something? 'cause your reply to Tom
    made zero sense.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHwUEmd90bcYOAWPYRAkk/AKCvWDozE2S266UocYUsieCHEO+JogCfQM/3
    oTy09qOoU87Xb/gt0BLX4/k=
    =UJO+
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    When you pay $900 for a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails.


  7. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Feb 24, 3:02*am, Jim Richardson wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:14:06 -0600,
    > *Tom Shelton wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 2008-02-22, Jim Richardson wrote:

    >
    > >> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:16:59 +0100,
    > >> *Hadron wrote:
    > >>> Linonut writes:

    >
    > >>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >
    > >>>>> In article ,
    > >>>>> *alt wrote:

    >
    > >>>>>> Why should the document format support all of Microsoft's (undocumented)
    > >>>>>> legacy crap? Shouldn't that be the job of the application?

    >
    > >>>>> The application needs to be able to save information about that legacy
    > >>>>> "crap", hence there is a need for some way to do that in the document
    > >>>>> format.

    >
    > >>>> Where's the 'need' for that? *You want to have access to all features of
    > >>>> those old documents? *Keep an old copy of the proprietary operating
    > >>>> system and proprietary Word processor around.

    >
    > >>> LOL. I am not sure if it is stupidity or naivety on your part. Did it
    > >>> never cross your mind that you need to access the contents on an
    > >>> uptodate OS? For *obvious* reasons I won't even bother to go into.

    >
    > >> makes no sense. We are discussing document formats, not the OS. Are you
    > >> saying that the MS document formats rely on the OS for something?

    >
    > > They might - for OLE automation. *In other words, there are lots of
    > > things besides other documents that can be embedded in a word doc.

    >
    > So not only do you have to have the right version of MS-Office, but the
    > right version of MS-Windows too? "Sorry, you can't read that document,
    > please buy a new computer first"


    That's a little extream - and very unlikely. I only mean that if they
    embed say another application in the document, then that application
    may not run on say Linux or MacOS X. I don't really think this is a
    very likely scenario....

    --
    Tom Shelton

    --
    Tom Shelton

  8. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    In article ,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    >
    > OOXML is *not* an open file format, ODF is. This is yet more
    > shillcosystem spin.


    Who to believe...Mark Kent, or the editor of the ODF TC at OASIS?



    I'd go with the latter. Or did Microsoft get to OASIS now, Mark, and so
    they are shilling for MS?

    --
    --Tim Smith

  9. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    Tom Shelton wrote in
    news:7519ea72-a579-46ee-b4ff-870ddb9cac15@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

    > That's a little extream - and very unlikely. I only mean that if they
    > embed say another application in the document, then that application
    > may not run on say Linux or MacOS X. I don't really think this is a
    > very likely scenario....


    How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a document
    format - not an application or platform.

    --
    Jesper Lund Stocholm
    http://idippedut.dk

  10. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 07:34 : \____

    > Tom Shelton wrote in
    > news:7519ea72-a579-46ee-b4ff-870ddb9cac15@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
    >
    >> That's a little extream - and very unlikely. I only mean that if they
    >> embed say another application in the document, then that application
    >> may not run on say Linux or MacOS X. I don't really think this is a
    >> very likely scenario....

    >
    > How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a document
    > format - not an application or platform.


    The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
    peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as Windows-only
    bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Play Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.15 0.96 1.45 3/153 6782
    http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative

  11. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:34:43 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

    > ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 07:34 : \____
    >
    >> Tom Shelton wrote in
    >> news:7519ea72-a579-46ee-b4ff-870ddb9cac15@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
    >>
    >>> That's a little extream - and very unlikely. I only mean that if they
    >>> embed say another application in the document, then that application
    >>> may not run on say Linux or MacOS X. I don't really think this is a
    >>> very likely scenario....

    >>
    >> How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a document
    >> format - not an application or platform.

    >
    > The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
    > peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as Windows-only
    > bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.


    I wouldn't trust a thing you say about OOXML, Roy Schestowitz and neither
    should the other poster.

    If you want to hear what Roy Schestowitz doesn't know about OOXML, listen
    here:

    http://www.linux.com/feature/122470

    Schestowitz gets drilled a new one by people who DO know about OOXML.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  12. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    In article <1326774.0QbyTOpFNq@schestowitz.com>,
    Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
    > peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as Windows-only
    > bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.


    It would be more interesting if you would explain what you think is bad
    about that.

    Before answering, consider that ODF also allows arbitrary binary, and
    has explicit support for OLE objects--which are Windows-only bits of
    code.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  13. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:27:20 -0800,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article <1326774.0QbyTOpFNq@schestowitz.com>,
    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >> The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
    >> peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as Windows-only
    >> bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.

    >
    > It would be more interesting if you would explain what you think is bad
    > about that.
    >
    > Before answering, consider that ODF also allows arbitrary binary, and
    > has explicit support for OLE objects--which are Windows-only bits of
    > code.
    >
    >



    OLE objects don't work with OSX versions of MS-Office?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHwylmd90bcYOAWPYRAlhPAJ43ee85IL3HfspbZCfoud 4l86hsogCfdh/y
    JvbqlcOGI6r8t0FOxrOGxG8=
    =2PbG
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    A distributed system is one in which the failure of a computer you
    didn't even know existed can render your own computer unusable.
    --Leslie Lamport

  14. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    Roy Schestowitz wrote in
    news:1326774.0QbyTOpFNq@schestowitz.com:

    > ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 07:34 : \____


    >> How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a
    >> document format - not an application or platform.

    >
    > The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
    > peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as
    > Windows-only bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.


    Please do. Any document format can contain arbitrary binary chunks and if
    you feel like it, you can stuff an ODF-file with Linux-only bits of code
    until it makes your face blue.

    I don't see why it is a problem. Any document producer can put anything
    they wish in the files.

    What do you think the alternative should be?

    --
    Jesper Lund Stocholm
    http://idippedut.dk

  15. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    In article <64mb95-gic.ln1@dragon.myth>,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    > > Before answering, consider that ODF also allows arbitrary binary, and
    > > has explicit support for OLE objects--which are Windows-only bits of
    > > code.
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    > OLE objects don't work with OSX versions of MS-Office?


    I thought they used something similar but not quite the same on OS X,
    but could be wrong.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  16. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    Tim Smith wrote in
    news:reply_in_group-8C65EF.11271925022008@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:

    > In article <1326774.0QbyTOpFNq@schestowitz.com>,
    > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >> The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to
    >> a peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as
    >> Windows-only bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires
    >> them.

    >
    > It would be more interesting if you would explain what you think is
    > bad about that.
    >
    > Before answering, consider that ODF also allows arbitrary binary, and
    > has explicit support for OLE objects--which are Windows-only bits of
    > code.


    That is actually not true. ODF does not have explixit support for OLE-
    objects. Section 9.3.3 (if I remember correctly) has a bject-ole>-
    element for "binary objects", but the term "OLE" is used as a general
    term to describe general "Object linking and embedding" and is not
    specific to Windows.

    It is exactly the same way it is done in OOXML.

    )

    --
    Jesper Lund Stocholm
    http://idippedut.dk

  17. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    Tim Smith wrote in
    news:reply_in_group-669E8A.14044225022008@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:

    > In article <64mb95-gic.ln1@dragon.myth>,
    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> > Before answering, consider that ODF also allows arbitrary binary,
    >> > and has explicit support for OLE objects--which are Windows-only
    >> > bits of code.

    >>
    >> OLE objects don't work with OSX versions of MS-Office?

    >
    > I thought they used something similar but not quite the same on OS X,
    > but could be wrong.


    An "OLE file" is actually just a file or more correctly, a "OLE2
    Compound file format" file, but it is essentially just a file format
    that allows seperate streams to be persisted on disk. Conceptionally it
    is comparable to a "Zip archive" where several streams (files) are saved
    in a single file. The term "filesystem within a file" is often used to
    describe it.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_storage for more details.

    On Windows, the technology "OLE" is used to read these compound files
    but on Macs, Linux, mainframes etc they use alternative tools or
    technologies to read the contents of these files.

    --
    Jesper Lund Stocholm
    http://idippedut.dk

  18. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 22:01 : \____

    > Roy Schestowitz wrote in
    > news:1326774.0QbyTOpFNq@schestowitz.com:
    >
    >> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 07:34 : \____

    >
    >>> How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a
    >>> document format - not an application or platform.

    >>
    >> The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
    >> peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as
    >> Windows-only bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.

    ^
    typo.

    > Please do. Any document format can contain arbitrary binary chunks and if
    > you feel like it, you can stuff an ODF-file with Linux-only bits of code
    > until it makes your face blue.
    >
    > I don't see why it is a problem. Any document producer can put anything
    > they wish in the files.
    >
    > What do you think the alternative should be?


    With all the Microsoft agents in this newsgroup, I don't know what noise you
    get exposed to (I filter them out), but here are some pointers taken from the
    past week (ish) alone:

    This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.

    ,----[ Quote ]
    |
    | | Type="http://.../customProperty" Target="CustomProperty.bin"/>
    |

    |
    | [...]
    |
    | Conclusion: Since there is no requirement on the format of the content, any
    | vendor can put its proprietary binary extensions in there.
    |
    | Good Bye Interoperability!
    `----

    http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41994...inaries-inside

    OOXML Contains Proprietary Microsoft Codecs (as 'Standard')

    http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41316...-video-formats


    DIS-29500: Deprecated before use?

    ,----[ Quote ]
    | Simultaneously, ECMA addresses this in Response 34 of its proposed
    | Disposition of Comments by removing all references to idiosyncrasies from the
    | specification and placing them in a newly formed Annex for deprecated
    | information. With the removal of this information from the DIS-29500, the
    | design goal of MS-OOXML can no longer be met. The entire specification has
    | therefore effectively become obsolete.
    `----

    http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-idiosyncrasies

    I can find you comments from the DIS-29500 Web sites which clearly indicate
    that there are deprecated Windows-only printing functions right there inside
    OOXML. There are many similar examples, but given the flood here of Microsoft
    agents I don't think it's the right place to discuss this.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "The only source is Open Source"
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 148 total, 1 running, 147 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

  19. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Feb 25, 12:34*am, Jesper Lund Stocholm
    wrote:
    > Tom Shelton wrote innews:7519ea72-a579-46ee-b4ff-870ddb9cac15@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
    >
    > > That's a little extream - and very unlikely. *I only mean that if they
    > > embed say another application in the document, then that application
    > > may not run on say Linux or MacOS X. *I don't really think this is a
    > > very likely scenario....

    >
    > How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a document
    > format - not an application or platform.
    >


    links to other applications - or activex controls.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  20. Re: ODF and binary data--why do you ignore it, Roy?

    On Feb 25, 5:59 pm, Roy Schestowitz
    wrote:
    > ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 22:01 : \____
    >
    > > Roy Schestowitz wrote in
    > >news:1326774.0QbyTOpFNq@schestowitz.com:

    >
    > >> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Monday 25 February 2008 07:34 : \____

    >
    > >>> How would you embed another application in a file? OOXML is a
    > >>> document format - not an application or platform.

    >
    > >> The file can contain a description of an executable (or a pointer to a
    > >> peripheral one). OOXML can contain arbitrary binaries, as well as
    > >> Windows-only bits of code. I'll provide examples if you requires them.

    >
    > ^
    > typo.
    >
    > > Please do. Any document format can contain arbitrary binary chunks and if
    > > you feel like it, you can stuff an ODF-file with Linux-only bits of code
    > > until it makes your face blue.

    >
    > > I don't see why it is a problem. Any document producer can put anything
    > > they wish in the files.

    >
    > > What do you think the alternative should be?

    >
    > With all the Microsoft agents in this newsgroup, I don't know what noise you
    > get exposed to (I filter them out), but here are some pointers taken from the
    > past week (ish) alone:
    >
    > This binary part supports the storage of arbitrary user-defined data.
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > |
    > | > | Type="http://.../customProperty" Target="CustomProperty.bin"/>
    > |

    > |
    > | [...]
    > |
    > | Conclusion: Since there is no requirement on the format of the content, any
    > | vendor can put its proprietary binary extensions in there.
    > |
    > | Good Bye Interoperability!
    > `----
    >
    > http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41994...ability-3-with...
    >
    > OOXML Contains Proprietary Microsoft Codecs (as 'Standard')
    >
    > http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41316...ability-2-with...
    >
    > DIS-29500: Deprecated before use?
    >
    > ,----[ Quote ]
    > | Simultaneously, ECMA addresses this in Response 34 of its proposed
    > | Disposition of Comments by removing all references to idiosyncrasies from the
    > | specification and placing them in a newly formed Annex for deprecated
    > | information. With the removal of this information from the DIS-29500, the
    > | design goal of MS-OOXML can no longer be met. The entire specification has
    > | therefore effectively become obsolete.
    > `----
    >
    > http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-idiosyncrasies
    >
    > I can find you comments from the DIS-29500 Web sites which clearly indicate
    > that there are deprecated Windows-only printing functions right there inside
    > OOXML. There are many similar examples, but given the flood here of Microsoft
    > agents I don't think it's the right place to discuss this.
    >
    > --
    > ~~ Best of wishes
    >
    > Roy S. Schestowitz | "The only source is Open Source"http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    > Tasks: 148 total, 1 running, 147 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    > http://iuron.com- knowledge engine, not a search engine


    Why do you keep trying to deflect attention from the fact that ODF
    allows the EXACT same thing? It does - read the spec. People in
    glass houses and all that...

    --
    Tom Shelton

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast