Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ B Gruff ] on Thursday 04 January 2007 23:11 \__
>
> > On Thursday 04 January 2007 22:15 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:08:44 -0600, Linonut wrote:
> >>
> >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Roy Schestowitz belched out this bit o'
> >>> wisdom:
> >>>
> >>>> ,----[ Quote ]
> >>>>| This is not a specification;
> >>>>| this is a DNA sequence. For example, take this part of the
> >>>>| OOXML "Standard":
> >>>>|
> >>>>| 2.15.3.6 autoSpaceLikeWord95 (Emulate Word 95 Full-Width
> >>>>| Character Spacing)
> >>>>|
> >>>>| This element specifies that applications shall emulate the
> >>>>| behavior of a previously existing word processing application
> >>>>| (Microsoft Word 95) when determining the spacing between full-width
> >>>>| East Asian characters in a document's content.
> >>>> `----
> >>>
> >>> Gotta admire MS's slickness. How to write an anti-specificiation.
> >>
> >> How, pray tell, do you plan to convert Word 95 documents to ODF without
> >> such support?
> >
> > I don't even understand the question, Erik.
> >
> > - How are Word 95 documents being converted to ODF now?
> >
> > - Why is Word 95 being "written into" the specification of a new standard?
> > .... let me put that another way - if the MS XML "standard" is calling up a
> > "Word 95 specification", where does one find that "Word 95 specification"?
> > Is it in an Appendix to the MS XML "specification"?
>
> A format is not a lesson in history.
And a format is not a garden hose or a toaster oven either. Do you have
a point?
> There should be a standard that's followed and when
. it's enhanced, as agreed by an industrial panel, it should
> be backward compatible (and elegantly so). You don't
> see RSS 2.0 specifying all sorts of nitty-gritty details about
> how to tweak things in order to remain consistent and
> backward-compatible with 1.0 (or 0.9.2).
Wrong example dorm boy. Then again it shows that you know absolutely
nothing about the RSS specification and are simply spewing BS. The RSS
specification has often been criticized for being terrible. Many
incompatible changes have been made and RSS has become an industry joke
when it comes to specifications.
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/02/04/incompatible-rss
<quote>
The RSS 2.01 specification was published in place of the RSS 2.0
specification; no official copies of the RSS 2.0 specification exist.
As you can see from example 10, RSS 2.01 feeds use the same "2.0?
version number as RSS 2.0, making it impossible to programmatically
distinguish them. All RSS 2.0 feeds must be assumed to be RSS 2.01
feeds, despite the fact that RSS 2.01 is incompatible with RSS 2.0.
This means that, if you published an valid RSS 2.0 feed on November
10th that contained <hour>24</hour>, you would wake up on November 11th
to find that your feed had become invalid while you slept.
In January of 2003, Userland changed the already-published RSS 2.01
specification, to add a <rating> element again. The content model
remains the same, which means RSS 2.01 is still incompatible with RSS
0.94 and all versions of RSS prior to RSS 0.92.
Once again, the new RSS 2.01 specification was published in place over
the old specification; no official copies of the previous version of
the RSS 2.01 specification exist. Neither the revision number of the
spec ("2.01?) nor the version number of the format ("2.0?) was changed,
making it impossible to programmatically distinguish between them. This
means that if a feed contains a <rating> element and declares itself as
RSS 2.0, it is impossible to know whether the feed is valid unless you
also know when the feed was created.
</quote>
RSS!!!! Great example Roy. Too bad you don't have a clue of what
you're talking about.
> This only comes to show that Microsoft's code evolution is utterly flawed.
And what exactly do you know about code evolution? Nothing of course.
Just like your "knowledge" of OSS.
> It's
> tweaks-rich, ad hoc, slapped together and glued where holes emerge. That's
> not how you built a wall... nor how you specify a format that can be
> followed.
Sounds more like the RSS specification to me than MS-Word which has had
one incompatible change in over 10 years. Unlike RSS which has broken
itself repeatedly in just a few years.
|
|
