Re:"I think you will all appreciate this person's commenting...
by lucian1900 on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @07:03AM
(#4748004)
It's still worse than ODT (which itself isn't exactly pretty), for no good reason. That's sad.
Re:"I think you will all appreciate this person's commenting...
by SideburnsOfDoom on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @07:43AM
(#4748115)
ODT is also XML-based, to Docx's problems compared to ODT can't be blamed on XML.
Re:"I think you will all appreciate this person's commenting...
by lucian1900 on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @09:21AM
(#4748455)
I never said it has anything to do with XML. OOXML is extremely complex for little reason. Even though it is also quite complex, ODT is much, much simpler.
Re:"I think you will all appreciate this person's commenting...
by makomk on Wednesday November 07, 2012 @07:07AM
(#4753099)
There are actually reasons for some of OOXML's weirdness, just not good ones. For instance, it appears the reason why OOXML is pretty much the only XML-based document format which doesn't use a mixed content model is because there's a huge amount of prior art that'd have made it impossible to patent if they had. (Microsoft tried anyway though.)
Re:"I think you will all appreciate this person's commenting...
by SideburnsOfDoom on Tuesday November 06, 2012 @09:49AM
(#4748575)
I'm not disagreeing with you; but the context is mostly about the use of XML.
This may be true but not the whole story. It's the reason why the MS office team bit the bullet and replaced .doc with .docx about 5 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML
Docx is basically XML in a zip file. It's a beast and has lots of compromises for backward compatibility, but as a design starting point, "zipped XML" is far far better than a binary dump of the in-memory data.