Slashdot Mirror

Microsoft only fails Transitional OOXML on one count, which is that one function returns the wrong type of positive result, which you can find from the blog of the guy who originally tested it:

Sure enough (again) the result is as expected: relatively few messages (84) are emitted and they are all of the same type complaining e.g. of the element:

since the allowed attribute values for val are now "true", "false", etc. this was one of the many tidying-up exercices performed at the BRM

You can find a list of other supported implementations here: ECMA 376 implementations.

I'm not paid to write crap like this, it's all my own work I'm afraid to say. What about your crap? Do you get paid to write that, or are you a freelance crapper like myself?

Here. 7,525 validation errors. He's the same guy that reported that MSOffice had about 122,000 OOXML errors.
Though I admit that I have some doubts about his methodology for the ODF test.

Here. 7,525 validation errors. He's the same guy that reported that MSOffice had about 122,000 OOXML errors.
Though I admit that I have some doubts about his methodology for the ODF test.

There's a set of RELAX NG XML Schemas for the Transitional and Strict OOXML specs that are trivial enough to use with something like jing [thaiopensource.com]; what more do you want?

I've already seen examples of MOO-XML that are compliant to the schema but won't load in Office. I would link to the blog in question, but searching for "office not compliant OOXML" now chokes up so many links (mostly about how bad it is) that I had trouble finding it.

The page you're looking for is this one. Certainly, that's what the Slashdot story (and most of the pages that come up in the Google search) used as a source.

Oh, and look, he states how he got his results: "...a set of the RELAX NG schemas for the (post-BRM) revision of OOXML ... use[ing] jing (or similar)...".

Now doesn't that look familiar? Yup, it's exactly what I said in my post. Know why? Because that was the source I used for my post.

indentLikeWord97 ... you have no idea from reading the schema OR the standard how to implement it. Your only recourse would be to get a copy of Word97, and reverse-engineer a painstaking model of how it indented things, and implement that yourself...

I assume you're thinking of AutoSpaceLikeWord95, there's no tag "indentlikeword97" (or at least if there is, googling for it gives no results).

And yeah, you could painstakingly reverse-engineer Word 95, work out how that implemented autospacing, and copy that.

Or you could, I dunno, read the spec . Or, at least, any version of the spec since about a year ago, when the ECMA released the relevent appendix with the deprecated tag documentation. But, hey, I guess it's easier to parrot other Slashdot posters who haven't read the spec and are themselves quoting yet older posts, until you get to a year ago and someone who has read the spec and was posting about their concerns which, back then, were perfectly valid.

For your edification:

2.15.3.6 autoSpaceLikeWord95 (Incorrectly Adjust Text Spacing for Specific Unicode Ranges)

This element specifies adjustments (detailed below) which should be applied to the spacing between adjoining regions of non-ideographic and ideographic text when the autoSpaceDE (Â2.3.1.2) and autoSpaceDN (Â2.3.13) elements have a value of true (or equivalent). This algorithm typically results in the following:

• An increase in the inter-character spacing added between non-ideographic and/or number characters and certain full-width characters
• No inter-character spacing between non-ideographic and/or number characters and certain half-width characters

Typically, applications apply additional spacing between ideographic and non-ideographic characters/numeric characters when the autoSpaceDE / autoSpaceDN properties are applied. This element, when present with a val attribute value of true (or equivalent), specifies that applications shall apply the following adjustments to this logic:

Characters in the following Unicode ranges should be treated as ideographic, even though those characters are full-width forms of non-ideographic text: U+FF10-U+FF19, U+FF21-U+FF3A, and U+FF41-U+FF5A. [Note: This results in the unnecessary addition of space. end note]

Characters in the following Unicode ranges should be treated as non-ideographic, even though those characters are ideographic: U+FF66-U+FF9F. [Note: This results in the omission of the intended additional space. end note]

[Example: Consider a WordprocessingML document with two paragraphs containing a mix of East Asian and Latin characters:
ab cd ab cd
The first paragraph contains characters with Unicode value U+FF66 (). The second paragraph contains characters with Unicode

Would you care to give an example of such an independent implementation? According to Alex Brown, the person who convened the Ballot Resolution Meeting for ISO/IEC, Microsoft's own current current implementation does not conform to the 'standard'

Ah, NOW I see what you mean. Why, in fact, I've just implemented the standard myself right here:
main(){exit(1);}

What do you mean my implementation doesn't conform? Neither does Microsoft's.

The TRANSITIONAL conformance model is quite a bit closer to the original Ecma 376. Countries at the BRM (rather more than Ecma, as it happened) were very keen to keep compatibilty with Ecma 376 and to preserve XML structures at which legacy Office features could be targetted. The expectation is therefore that an MS Office 2007 document should be pretty close to valid according to the TRANSITIONAL schema. Sure enough (again) the result is as expected: relatively few messages (84) are emitted and they are all of the same type complaining e.g. of the element: since the allowed attribute values for val are now "true", "false", etc. -- this was one of the many tidying-up exercices performed at the BRM.

<m:degHide m:val="on"/>

The expectation is therefore that an MS Office 2007 document should be pretty close to valid according to the TRANSITIONAL schema.

Sure enough (again) the result is as expected: relatively few messages (84) are emitted and they are all of the same type.

<m:degHide m:val="on"/> where "val's" values are supposed to be "true|false".

[snip]

Making them conform to the TRANSITIONAL will require less of the same sort of surgery (since they're quite close to conformant as-is)