Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why stop at adversarial interoperability? When we're talking about monopolistic participants, why not compel them to open the network and standards that are serving as a barrier to entry. We take for granted that a Verizon phone can call a T-Mobile user; the situation in social media in particular, as well as .doc/.docx, is archaic.


I was under the impression that the docx format is a published standard, first under ECMA-376 then ISO/IEC 29500:2008. Microsoft has also promised to not enforce any patent claims they have that are necessary for someone to adopt those standards.


AFAIK docx as produced by Word doesn't even comply with the standard.


It's a superset of the standard. Word uses some features that were in the standard that was first proposed but did not pass, like OLE serialization.


Strange that they can call it a standard yet continue to include non-agreed-upon extensions. At some point it becomes false advertising, unless they fork it under a new MIME type


I believe a company has a right to support backwards compatibility for file formats. If they propose a standard and the outcome of the standards work prevents their supporting backwards compatibility (in both directions), I’d rather they support their customers (and their data/files), document their extension use, even at the expense of pure standards implementations not being able to read those files.


When I had a project to render docx files, I had to refer the ECMA pdfs which were tens of thousands of pages long and use that only to supplement reverse engineering Word documents. I also remember something hardly decclarative: if a picture was angled, I had to calculate the container boundaries and store it redundantly in the container.


>Microsoft has also promised to not enforce any patent claims they have that are necessary for someone to adopt those standards.

Why would any sane person trust a corporation's word, let alone Microsoft's?

Corporations are not your friend and will happily fuck you over for a few percentage points' increase in shareholder returns. Have we forgotten embrace, extend, extinguish already?


It's not like it's a pinky promise. They published an irrevocable declaration, which if they tried to walk back would undoubtedly be problematic at a minimum when it went to court.

http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2006-09-12-a.html


Can such declarations remain unchangeable in the face of a company collapsing and its assets being sold to new stewards?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: