La réalité est que MS est anti logiciel libre à fond.
La réalité est que MS ne veut pas d'intéropérabilité.
La réalité est que tu es un putain de gros menteur.
La réalité est que MS-OOXML est une grosse bousse : http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/implementation-defined-n(...) Implementation-defined (Not really)
Here begins the lesson on Embrace, Extend and Extinguish (EEE).
...
An easy way to find these extension points is to search the OOXML specification for "application-defined" or "implementation-defined". You will find dozens of them, such as:
...
So, by failing to include this in their conformance clause, OOXML's use of the term "implementation-defined" is toothless. It just means "We don't want to tell you this information" or "We don't want to interoperate". Conformant applications are not required to actually document how they extend the standard. You can look at Microsoft Office 2007 as a prime example. Where is this documentation that explains how Office 2007 implements these "implementation-defined" features? How is interoperability promoted without this?.
Le commentaire d'un mec qui implémente MS-OOXML :
Implementation-defined stuff goes actually even beyond that.
...
Yep, we (implementers) are all back to good ol' reverse engineering.
...
We (implementers) are back to ol' reverse engineering.
...
I like to mention that, even though I'm implementing it since summer 2006
...
Another way I have to say it is that ECMA 376 should be 600,000 pages if it was a decent reflection of the product, not 6,000. In other words, the only way to interoperate with this stuff is to take a look at the source code.
[^] # Re: T'as raison
Posté par IsNotGood . En réponse au journal Comme soupconne OSP est une arnaque!. Évalué à 2.
Non.
> Le FUD il est clairement de votre cote
Non.
> ca ne changera rien a la realite mon cher.
La réalité est que MS est anti logiciel libre à fond.
La réalité est que MS ne veut pas d'intéropérabilité.
La réalité est que tu es un putain de gros menteur.
La réalité est que MS-OOXML est une grosse bousse :
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/03/implementation-defined-n(...)
Implementation-defined (Not really)
Here begins the lesson on Embrace, Extend and Extinguish (EEE).
...
An easy way to find these extension points is to search the OOXML specification for "application-defined" or "implementation-defined". You will find dozens of them, such as:
...
So, by failing to include this in their conformance clause, OOXML's use of the term "implementation-defined" is toothless. It just means "We don't want to tell you this information" or "We don't want to interoperate". Conformant applications are not required to actually document how they extend the standard. You can look at Microsoft Office 2007 as a prime example. Where is this documentation that explains how Office 2007 implements these "implementation-defined" features? How is interoperability promoted without this?.
Le commentaire d'un mec qui implémente MS-OOXML :
Implementation-defined stuff goes actually even beyond that.
...
Yep, we (implementers) are all back to good ol' reverse engineering.
...
We (implementers) are back to ol' reverse engineering.
...
I like to mention that, even though I'm implementing it since summer 2006
...
Another way I have to say it is that ECMA 376 should be 600,000 pages if it was a decent reflection of the product, not 6,000. In other words, the only way to interoperate with this stuff is to take a look at the source code.