Office 2007 Fails OOXML Test With 122,000 Errors 430
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Groklaw is reporting that some people have decided to compare the OOXML schema to actual Microsoft Office 2007 documents. It won't surprise you to know that Office 2007 failed miserably. If you go by the strict OOXML schema, you get a 17 MiB file containing approximately 122,000 errors, and 'somewhat less' with the transitional OOXML schema. Most of the problems reportedly relate to the serialization/deserialization code. How many other fast-tracked ISO standards have no conforming implementations?"
I wish I had mod points right now... (Score:0, Insightful)
What's the Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Technical Details (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop using MiB (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're missing the point of an ISO standard (Score:5, Insightful)
OOXML is such a Fraud! (Score:5, Insightful)
Impressive (Score:5, Insightful)
While it's hardly unexpected that Office 2007 document format isn't *cough* ISO compliant, 122k errors for a 60Mb file results into a remarkable ~500 bytes of markup per error.
I really do not understand where Microsoft is heading. They've rammed their miserable OOXML format through - supposedly so they could advertise their product as ISO compliant. But what's their advantage now that their product is shown to be so horribly incompatible?
122,000 errors sure but... (Score:5, Insightful)
As bad as it may seem... (Score:2, Insightful)
down with mebibytes! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Impressive (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has zero percentage in having a good, workable, open format.
Re:You're missing the point of an ISO standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Valid as in possible to implement. How could a standard not be possible to implement you ask? Well that is simple. E.g. write a program that follows this standard:
1. It must print "1" on exit
2. It must print "2" on exit
As you can see, it would not be possible to implement a program according to that standard. That is why someone would need to write a reference application implementing the standard to notice errors like this. Before the standard is given to the whole world to be implemented.
It is better that only one has to wonder the errors of the standards, rather than the whole world.
Re:Stop using MiB (Score:3, Insightful)
I see a lot of this happening in Wikipedia articles lately, too. Someone let the hyperpedantic nerds out of their basements to confuse every normal person on the fucking planet.
Similar to the new prevalence of BCE and CE vs. BC and AD. Come on, you must admit that "Anno Domine" is far cooler than "Current/Christian Era". Up next, we change "Wednesday" to "Threeday", because references to Odin are just far too Euro-centric. That is, assuming we stick with that Judeo-Christian concept about Sunday being the seventh day.
Re:Stop using MiB (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, "octet" is the french word for "byte", so it's also 8-bit.
Re:Impressive (Score:2, Insightful)
<xml schema="http:fuckingxml.com">
<myboolean>
TRUE
</myboolean>
</xml>
On that basis, 500 bytes per error probably equates to around 1.152 bits of "useful" error information.
Rather than standardize even more bloated crap, on this occasion I applaud MS for comitting OOXML to the early grave it deserves, by failing to even pass the tests on a standard they effectively created (and paid a lot of money) to get approved.
Re:Impressive (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're missing the point of an ISO standard (Score:5, Insightful)
That explains why OSI is such a trainwreck compared to IP.
So why was ODF approved, then? Or ISO C?
"Lowest common denominator" is not equivalent to bottom-up design.
Up with mebibytes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there are those of us who think the prank is the people who refuse to use it (and who trot out the tired "hard drive manufacturers are stealing my disk space" myth/meme).
Seriously, the one thing we can agree on is that there is often confusion regarding whether someone meant "1000" or "1024" when they used a prefix. The difference in approach between the two camps is:
1. Stick with the status quo (where one tries to guess the convention being used based on context). That is, just accept with the confusion/inaccuracy.
2. Use SI units in the original SI sense (powers of 10) and use new binary prefixes when you really mean it (power of 2). That is, create a convention and adhere to it.
Interesting that in a discussion about standards (and failures thereof) you would argue that a standard meant to reduce confusion is a prank! I agree, by the way, that "mebibyte" sounds kinda silly... but who cares? It gets the job done. ("Quark" was a silly name, but it's now deeply ingrained in science and no one thinks twice about it.)
For what it's worth, many software products now use the binary prefix [wikipedia.org] notation (e.g. Konqueror).
Re:You're missing the point of an ISO standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HTML (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You're missing the point of an ISO standard (Score:5, Insightful)
A bit like comparing tcp/ip and whatsitsname (x400?). It doesn't really matter how nice something looks on paper if there's no good implementation of it.
Re:Curiousity (Score:3, Insightful)
until some governments stepped in and said any documents submitted to them in the coming years has to be an open standard.
so they bought their way to one and voila. their documents still dont conform in practice, but in theory it's an open standard
Re:You're doubly missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:HTML (Score:4, Insightful)
The current HTML specs are trainwrecks for the same reason. That's what HTML 5 is attempting to fix.
Incidentally, the W3C specs are actually called "Recommendations". There's probably a reason for that.
Re:Curiousity (Score:2, Insightful)
You've fallen victim to Microsoft's water-muddying strategy -- They gave their new file spec the ridiculous name of "Office Open XML" (abbreviated OOXML) just so it would be conflated with the OpenOffice.org's software and file formats.
So this is not a case of a third-party compliance test like the Acid tests for web browsers; this is Microsoft failing to conform to their own standard.
Re:Stop using MiB (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, we don't use "hour" to mean "sixty minutes" in every context except computing, where it means "fifty-eight and a half minutes". The rationality lies in the removal of confusion, as much as in the units themselves.
ODF wasn't fast-tracked (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh wait! It wasn't!
The fast-track is for de-facto standards which are already so widespread (i.e. supported by multiple vendors) and consistent that there's little point in trying to push a divergent standard out, even though a divergent standard might be better. Something like TCP/IP would be a good example of the sort of thing where the fast track might be appropriate. ODF wasn't fast-tracked, so the standards committee came up with the best standard, irrespective of what might actually be out there in the wild. Now it's up to the vendors to catch up. That's the usual way this is done (i.e. the C++ standard, where most vendors took a few years to catch up, or the C standard where most vendors took a few months to catch up, and MS took a few years).
Of course, if MSOOXML had gone through the regular track, it probably would have taken years to finish (since it's so large, complex, and poorly defined), and MS couldn't afford to wait. So instead they bought themselves a standards committee or twelve.
Re:Stop using MiB (Score:5, Insightful)
You have never seen the confusion of metric users entering the CS field, have you? Ever seen a teacher struggle with the very same point we're having right now?
As I said, in the rest of the world, kilo means 1000, not 1024. And here you're saying it becomes something else because a particular field has abused it for 40 years?
Also note that both hard drive manufacturers and digital telecommunications, in a computing context, use 1000 for kilo.
So your argument becomes "if you're in a computing context BUT not talking about hard drives OR telecommunications, then kilo means 1024"...
I'd rather use KiB=1024, thank you very much.
Re:Curiousity (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with that is that an open document format standard is a direct threat to Microsoft's near-monopoly in the office app department. If anyone can implement a document format that's cross-compatible, then they can easily implement a competitor to Office, and if they decide to undercut Office or (as with OO.org) give the damn thing away, then Microsoft's monopoly is one breath from collapse, and believe me, if Microsoft loses Office, they're in serious, serious trouble within five years. So, OOXML, a "standard" that not even Microsoft can implement, is pushed through the ISO using all sorts of peculiar and ultimately nefarious methods now means Microsoft and its partners can go around telling Small Town, USA that Office saves in an ISO standard, but in reality, the poor bastard in 2100AD who needs to open this file is going to be spending many months trying to figure out this monster, which is in direct violation of the whole notion of an open standard.
That you have no problems is irrelevant. That's not what the point of an open standard is.
What it the idea behind the "fast track" process? (Score:4, Insightful)
If that is correct, then how does the MSOOXML standard qualify? This is a "standard" that is used by absolutely nobody, not even the creator of the standard uses this standard.
Do I not understand the idea behind the fast-track process?
Re:That is an improvement (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of the article is that there are no conforming implementations. There never will be a conforming implementation and everyone knows it.
Re:What's the Problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stop using MiB (Score:4, Insightful)
There, fixed that for you.
Re:Stop using MiB (Score:1, Insightful)
The problem is not with the people who use the data true, the problem is that the SI standards of Kilo, Mega etc... were here first and apply to device construction. The problem is in networking and to a degree harddrives, not software. If you ask me to build a fibre system using a laser that transmits at x KB/s, I'm clear on that, it's 1000 bytes. Not 1024, because I was trained as a physical scientist, and hardware as made by engineers and scientists requires clear specification. Everyone knows that when asked to put 44K of fuel into a plane you don't put 44K pounds of fuel in an airplane, you put 44K kilograms because the world is on SI, except the US and liberia. So some idiot puts 44k pounds of fuel in a plane and it has to glide into the azores rather than crossing the atlantic. So you have to clearly specify.
This isn't, and wasn't particlarly a problem when we were working in Kilobytes or even really megabytes, and getting kibibytes confused with kilobytes is a relatively small error, that becomes a problem when you're talking about 'Petabytes', where 1.126 * 10^15 and 1.0 * 10^15 are two rather different things, and which one is your hardware using?
As to why it was never clear, the wikipedia article is remarkably helpful: the 1.44 MB floppy, in which the 'M' as used is neither mibibytes nor megabtyes but one * the other. Confused yet? Good, that's why we have international bodies to standardize language, so you won't be anymore.
Re:What's the Problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
If tax money is used to lubricate the wheels of commerce, by ensuring a fit, well-educated, flexible, motivated work force, and by ensuring that infrastructure just works, that monopolies aren't abused etc.. Then there is no reason for taxation, within reason, to be a problem. I guess the logic is that sometimes, an intelligent government, voted for by the people and working for the people, can spend/invest the people's money more wisely then they can themselves.
Re:Yes, I think so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does anyone know if Open Office is compliant wi (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's the Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand, a person should indeed be free to live as one sees fit, including spending. But on the other hand, people are stupid, so electing smart people and raising taxes seems like a win to me. That just leaves the "election" part, then. Now what to do about that.....
Re:You're missing the point of an ISO standard (Score:1, Insightful)
Acid3? WTF? I thought this was about OOXML? (Score:3, Insightful)
However firefox does with the acid3 has nothing to do with ISO corruption, does it?
Re:HTML (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, help me out here. Do you mean "how well that turned out" in the sense that HTML has been a huge success (you know, what with being the medium that we're using to display our comments right now ...) or in the sense of being a huge disaster?
I mean, I can sympathize with both views. I'm just wondering which one I should sympathize with in the context of your post.
Re:What kind of BS is that? "Strict Standard?" (Score:3, Insightful)
How long should it have taken for MS to release a version that matched ISO OOXML strict? One hour? One day? One year? More?
Companies dont have the magical ability to instantly create a released product the day that the standards group settles on something. Thats just absurd.
According to TFA, Office 2007 OOXML is very conformant to ISO OOXML Transitional. But its not very comformant to ISO OOXML Strict.
This should not be a surprise. For examle, the Strict version removes VML as a vector graphics markup. But MS has a decade or more of investment in VML, and their currently released products use VML. It will take a while for MS to change Office to not use VML (assuming they do choose to).
Standards that come from mature, crufty old de-facto standards (ie, OOXML) are always going to be uglier than standards that were created to be a standard from day one (ie, ODF). Thats just reality. Expecting it to be clean and pretty is not reasonable.
But the world where OOXML and the previous binary
PS, thank you Twitter for being reasonably coherent and making a post that, littered with the M$ nonsense that it is, at least was a reasonable discussion.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the Problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Please continue things like this on Slashdot. Many of us come here mainly so we can read the debates that go on and it's a shame if an interesting one retires to private email discussion. That was a fascinating post.
Re:Validates better against the TRANSITIONAL spec (Score:3, Insightful)
FFS, ODF isn't a fast-track ('multiply implemented and widespread') standard. It's perfectly acceptable for a proposed standard to be ahead of current implementations - it's only proposed after all. Implementations should be expect to be playing catch-up.
OOXML on the other hand is claimed to be already implemented and widespread and thus eligible for fast track. So it is a big deal if it turns out it isn't. Not to mention that you're selectively pointing out that the transitional version nearly works, blithely ignoring the fact (in the same blog) that strict is well fucked. So the strict version of the 'standard' should be thrown out even harder that then the transitional.
I'm beginning to wonder if this concept is just too hard to grasp for many slashdotters or if there're just too many people drinking Norway brand Kool-aid.
Justin.