no additional specification<\/a>, then you know that the fix is in. My guess is that MS Word has code someplace that looks like this:<\/p>\n
if (useWord97LineBreakRules)
doCrappyOldWayOfLineBreaking(); \/\/ reuse legacy code from Word 97
else
doNewWayOfLineBreaking(); \/\/ Use new rules
<\/pre>\nIf this is true, then MS Word can implement this feature trivially. But no one else can make sense of it, because we lack a specification of its behavior . They might has well had called the attribute, “Fred.” It is just as useful.<\/p>\n
Another example is how OOXML deals with PowerPoint slide transitions, the things that people use in an attempt to make a boring presentation seem more interesting. Microsoft has ensured that they can represent<\/span> all of the transitions. They are all there listed in Section 4.4.1.46: blinds, checker, circle, comb, cover, cut, etc. But when you drill down into the definitions, this is what you find:<\/p>\nwheel (Wheel Slide Transition)<\/p>\n
This element describes a wheel slide transition effect.<\/p>\n
[Example: Consider we have a slide with a wheel slide transition. The <wheel> element should be used as follows:<\/p>\n
<p:transition>
<p:wheel\/>
<\/p:transition>
End example]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
That’s it. Ditto for all of the other slide transitions. Not exactly specified fully, is it? Although the text claims that it “describes a wheel slide transition effect,” in truth it merely labels it. There is no specification<\/span>, only representation<\/span>. And that curious little example \u2014 is this some sort of joke? Did someone really think that attributes with no definition are improved by trivial examples? It reminds me of the old spelling bee joke:<\/p>\nJudge: The word is “synecdoche.”
Student: Could you use that in a sentence?
Judge: Certainly. “Synecdoche” is a very hard word to spell.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
100% correct, but also 100% useless. As I read through the OOXML specification I am finding hundreds of places like this where things are labeled, but no definition is given.<\/p>\n
So I think we need to ask more questions when we hear the claims that OOXML was designed to faithfully represent<\/span> 100% of the legacy documents. We need to respond that representation <\/span>is not enough for an open format. Even an XML format of just <one>’s and <zero>’s can do that. To be of use to anyone other than Microsoft we need more than just representation<\/span>. We need specification<\/span>, and we need the map to the legacy formats. To accept anything else is to embark on a voyage with a foreign dictionary missing the definitions. It can represent everything that you want to say, but you’ll be unable to say any of it.<\/p>\nISO defines a standard as a:<\/p>\n
…document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A key clause there is the requirement for providing, “common and repeated use.” Providing explicit representation<\/span> for a single vendor’s legacy formats while not providing for common use of that ability, this is not the purpose of an ISO standard and to my eyes appears to be an abuse of the standardization process.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Maybe I just have an ear for this, but whenever I hear a number of people saying the same odd thing, using the same strained phrase, it catches my attention and makes me take a closer look. Individuals naturally have a great diversity of expression and phrasing, so where this is lacking, and the Borg […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-104","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-ooxml","7":"entry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/104\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.robweir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}