There had been *no* official publicly announced release dates, until possibly this one, and even that's dubious. Internet news services desperate for scoops are not official announcements.
The issues raised are hardly evidence of the serious flaws you implied.
I don't remember MS making any claims about Release dates for SP1.
I haven't any signs of "bad programming decisions" in Vista. Of all the technical documentation and blog posts read the view is one of significant advancement in the underlying API's and architecture. But maybe if I was looking at this completely uninformed and ignorant, I might also come to some FUD conclusion.
"Let me ask this... do you want to have to write one script for each possible client browser, each in its own language? Because if you throw out JS that is *precisely* what you will get."
True, but maybe your goal is to enable new possibilities, a better web etc. Of course, then you'd need to replace css and do something better than HTML. Oh well. May as well let Adobe or MS show us the way.
There will be soon. Go check out v1.1 of Silverlight, I believe they are shipping a portable version of the CLR and the ability to code in C#, ironruby or ironpython - dynamically compiled.
"The idea that an institution like the British Library, which is run by people bright enough to make you look like a dead match, would accept such a preposterous idea is insulting."
Either that or you're incredibly stupid.
So what you're saying is it's ok for companies to bundle software, except Microsoft, because they're 'malicious'. Ok never mind that. I take your other point as this: Microsoft bundled IE to prevent Netscape's version of javascript from 'taking the web by storm'. Confused.
Huh? What is the difference between an 'Operating System Company' and a 'Software Company'? Where are the rules that say you must be one or the other?
With regards to IE, MS released a product that became superior to the competition at the time. It took a considerably long period before anything remotely competitive appeared, giving MS an enormous advantage. If Netscape had released a product that bettered IE, it might have been clearer if 'vendor lock-in' (debatable given both companies were active in this area) or 'product bundling' really were influentual in the market's choice at that time. BTW, to point out the bleedingly obvious, an opinion different to yours does not equate to the holder being psychotic.
On the surface zip files appear to have an indexing ability. I would have thought that in most cases indexing the files would be enough - a large document can be split into several files (by chapter for example). Back in the 80's it might have been worthwhile to index down to the page level or (heaven forbid) the individual cells of a spreadsheet. PC's have moved on a bit since then.
MS's Open XML is also intended to be a "free and open format". So then we have two free and open office document formats, and an therefore an ability to choose. Surely that's better?
"As for ODF being a turd... yes, but not as smelly as the OO-XML turd. All this zipped XML stuff is very low performance."
Any evidence of that low performance?
Wrong again. The HTML standard, even with HTML 3.0, stated that the tag REQUIRED a tag. Based on the language standards, they should've been enforcing this but made a decision not to. HTML 3.2 recommendation was ratified in 1997. The Netscape vs IE war begain in 1994. Three years earlier. Every HTML design tool that MS currently has conforms to the standards, including Visual Studio.
You're asking me to go back almost a decade to find something like that. I know that a friend of mine actually experienced this. Yes I am. From my knowledge, IE never uninstalled Netscape.
You don't work for a government contractor or with secure data, do you. It's a HUGE problem if the program that crashes and sends back a report is dealing with secure data, be it government classified or corporate (like maybe your credit card number?). I can see how that may be a problem. I can also see how one would easily make that mistake - when all they were trying to do was fix bugs.
Binary-encoding JPEG data is one thing. Binary-encoding format data is another. Since some fields are being binary-encoded in the name of "backwards compatability," who knows what proprietary formatting information they might still keep in there that they won't put anywhere else. No 'field' in the spec contains binary encoded information. As I understand it it's a reference to a file. There is no difference btw a jpeg and anything else, it's just a blob. You can put extra field information inside a JPEG to do 'secret stuff' if you really want to. Your whole argument is based on fear and misinformation about MS. Get over it dude. Don't rely on Groklaw for your all your info, because they have exactly the same biases.
Shenanigans! Their web browsers render broken HTML and have been doing this for a long time... because their products produce broken HTML. Things like missing tags...
As I previously said, *backwards compatibility*. They made a choice of not strictly parsing back in the early days of IE and are now paying the price for it. This was before XML mind you so it was hardly a contentious decision back then.
like having the IE installation program remove any copy of Netscape from your computer without telling you about it or requesting your consent to do so. I have never heard of this. If true, it is indeed anti-competitive. The MS of today would never do it; times have changed. But I'm intrigued - do you have a reference?
Or their practices of having the operating system send back crash report data without your knowledge or consent. They don't do this now - so what's the problem? Not that it ever really was a problem.
As long as there is binary-encoded data present, there will be a temptation to use it beyond whatever they say it will be used for. Please read-up on the "binary encoded" content. It's an XML-Schema based specification. As I understand it binary files included in a ZIP package can be anything - it's simply a reference to the binary file that your hosting app decides what to do with. They haven't specified how to decode a JPEG for example.
So your objection is political rather than technical. I'm not sure why you would implement OpenXml if you are so against it, and can only imagine that with your current attitude it will be a very difficult task.
I for one do not want to be stuck with a potentially flawed document specification that insists on using a whole lot of other flawed baggage. Not to mention being hijacked by a bunch of competing interests and FOSS zealots more interested in politics than technical innovation.
Not that I am against ODF in any way, it may turn out to be superior (although I'm highly dubious). I'm just for choice rather than lock-in in such a complex set of technologies. If anyone is placed to produce a decent spec to describe spreadsheets and word processing etc is it Microsoft. If MS joined ODF I doubt a fair hearing would be possible given the negativity towards MS of the groups involved.
Regarding CHM - I see no irony. The schema *documentation* is availabe in CHM or HTML format.
Unfortunately this is the usual unfounded crap that is constantly peddled against Microsoft. They simply don't do it. If you are basing your theory on the differences between IE and Netscape implementations, both parties implemented beyond the existing 'standard' at the time. The only reason MS cannot completely adhere to web standards in the current version of IE is backwards compatibility.
Other MS standards that have been opened (such as the ISO ratified Common Language Infrastructure) has not been subject to the 'tampering' you speak of.
I also assume you have sent your concerns to ECMA and Microsoft so that the specification can be improved if required. Is the issue that your concerns have been ignored?
'Fast Track' means there are still six months left in the process before voting begins. I'd hate to think what the alternative is.
There is nothing wrong with putting a spec on fast track, especially one as important as this. I imagine the reason it has been put onto 'fast track' is because the process has already taken far too long (ECMA have stated that during their work with the spec it has grown from 2000 to 6000 pages). It is far far better documented that ODF, so what the hell is the problem? The problem is misinformation and bias largely from the vocal FOSS groups.
Have you read the ECMA response? Debunk is a pretty accurate description. To me it seems a number of the 'objections' are sourced from popular myths propagated by such sites as Groklaw.
The lack of documentation for 'autoSpaceLikeWord95' is hardly a showstopper. Apparently the ODF spec also has omissions in the documentation. Many have given examples that those omissions are far worse than those in OpenXml.
I don't see how improving the documentation of a proposed standard is a bad idea. That is patently absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Putting words into my mouth now?
I can see your definition of an announcement and mine differ wildy. Let's leave it at that.
There had been *no* official publicly announced release dates, until possibly this one, and even that's dubious. Internet news services desperate for scoops are not official announcements.
The issues raised are hardly evidence of the serious flaws you implied.
I don't remember MS making any claims about Release dates for SP1.
I haven't any signs of "bad programming decisions" in Vista. Of all the technical documentation and blog posts read the view is one of significant advancement in the underlying API's and architecture. But maybe if I was looking at this completely uninformed and ignorant, I might also come to some FUD conclusion.
"Let me ask this... do you want to have to write one script for each possible client browser, each in its own language? Because if you throw out JS that is *precisely* what you will get."
True, but maybe your goal is to enable new possibilities, a better web etc. Of course, then you'd need to replace css and do something better than HTML. Oh well. May as well let Adobe or MS show us the way.
..or you could do some research. v1.1 will have support for strongly typed scripting.
There will be soon. Go check out v1.1 of Silverlight, I believe they are shipping a portable version of the CLR and the ability to code in C#, ironruby or ironpython - dynamically compiled.
"The idea that an institution like the British Library, which is run by people bright enough to make you look like a dead match, would accept such a preposterous idea is insulting." Either that or you're incredibly stupid.
Second that.
So what you're saying is it's ok for companies to bundle software, except Microsoft, because they're 'malicious'. Ok never mind that. I take your other point as this: Microsoft bundled IE to prevent Netscape's version of javascript from 'taking the web by storm'. Confused.
Huh? What is the difference between an 'Operating System Company' and a 'Software Company'? Where are the rules that say you must be one or the other?
With regards to IE, MS released a product that became superior to the competition at the time. It took a considerably long period before anything remotely competitive appeared, giving MS an enormous advantage. If Netscape had released a product that bettered IE, it might have been clearer if 'vendor lock-in' (debatable given both companies were active in this area) or 'product bundling' really were influentual in the market's choice at that time. BTW, to point out the bleedingly obvious, an opinion different to yours does not equate to the holder being psychotic.
On the surface zip files appear to have an indexing ability. I would have thought that in most cases indexing the files would be enough - a large document can be split into several files (by chapter for example). Back in the 80's it might have been worthwhile to index down to the page level or (heaven forbid) the individual cells of a spreadsheet. PC's have moved on a bit since then.
MS's Open XML is also intended to be a "free and open format". So then we have two free and open office document formats, and an therefore an ability to choose. Surely that's better?
"As for ODF being a turd... yes, but not as smelly as the OO-XML turd. All this zipped XML stuff is very low performance." Any evidence of that low performance?
As I previously said, *backwards compatibility*. They made a choice of not strictly parsing back in the early days of IE and are now paying the price for it. This was before XML mind you so it was hardly a contentious decision back then.
like having the IE installation program remove any copy of Netscape from your computer without telling you about it or requesting your consent to do so. I have never heard of this. If true, it is indeed anti-competitive. The MS of today would never do it; times have changed. But I'm intrigued - do you have a reference? Or their practices of having the operating system send back crash report data without your knowledge or consent. They don't do this now - so what's the problem? Not that it ever really was a problem. As long as there is binary-encoded data present, there will be a temptation to use it beyond whatever they say it will be used for. Please read-up on the "binary encoded" content. It's an XML-Schema based specification. As I understand it binary files included in a ZIP package can be anything - it's simply a reference to the binary file that your hosting app decides what to do with. They haven't specified how to decode a JPEG for example.This is the first time I've seen someone post this reality on /. Thank you.
So your objection is political rather than technical. I'm not sure why you would implement OpenXml if you are so against it, and can only imagine that with your current attitude it will be a very difficult task.
I for one do not want to be stuck with a potentially flawed document specification that insists on using a whole lot of other flawed baggage. Not to mention being hijacked by a bunch of competing interests and FOSS zealots more interested in politics than technical innovation.
Not that I am against ODF in any way, it may turn out to be superior (although I'm highly dubious). I'm just for choice rather than lock-in in such a complex set of technologies. If anyone is placed to produce a decent spec to describe spreadsheets and word processing etc is it Microsoft. If MS joined ODF I doubt a fair hearing would be possible given the negativity towards MS of the groups involved.
Regarding CHM - I see no irony. The schema *documentation* is availabe in CHM or HTML format.
My apologies, my statement was incorrect.
So why did ODF get through as an ISO standard? Where's the brouhaha about that?
Unfortunately this is the usual unfounded crap that is constantly peddled against Microsoft. They simply don't do it. If you are basing your theory on the differences between IE and Netscape implementations, both parties implemented beyond the existing 'standard' at the time. The only reason MS cannot completely adhere to web standards in the current version of IE is backwards compatibility.
Other MS standards that have been opened (such as the ISO ratified Common Language Infrastructure) has not been subject to the 'tampering' you speak of.
That's great! Your knowledge would be extremely beneficial to others. What is the product you are working on? Do you have a list of the problems?
Presumably the errors in XML case or spelling can be compared against the existing electronic schema (http://www.ecma-international.org/news/TC45_curre nt_work/TC45-2006-50_final_draft.htm/). In which case the schema obviously wins out, so I would see this as a minor typo that is easily fixed. In the case that Office couldn't read a document because an additional path component - isn't Office implemented with a different version of the schema (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?f amilyid=15805380-f2c0-4b80-9ad1-2cb0c300aef9&displ aylang=en/)? In any case, flaws exist in software and documentation and always will.
I also assume you have sent your concerns to ECMA and Microsoft so that the specification can be improved if required. Is the issue that your concerns have been ignored?
'Fast Track' means there are still six months left in the process before voting begins. I'd hate to think what the alternative is.
There is nothing wrong with putting a spec on fast track, especially one as important as this. I imagine the reason it has been put onto 'fast track' is because the process has already taken far too long (ECMA have stated that during their work with the spec it has grown from 2000 to 6000 pages). It is far far better documented that ODF, so what the hell is the problem? The problem is misinformation and bias largely from the vocal FOSS groups.
This should not get a score of 2.
Have you read the ECMA response? Debunk is a pretty accurate description. To me it seems a number of the 'objections' are sourced from popular myths propagated by such sites as Groklaw.
The lack of documentation for 'autoSpaceLikeWord95' is hardly a showstopper. Apparently the ODF spec also has omissions in the documentation. Many have given examples that those omissions are far worse than those in OpenXml.
I don't see how improving the documentation of a proposed standard is a bad idea. That is patently absurd.