The format wasn't the act of sabotage. The way they drove it through the standardization process was. It couldn't have been standardized through the normal process. Similarly, pointing to it, afterwards, as if it were just as implementable as any other standardized format, was an act of deliberate sabotage.

▲

Ygg2 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Malicious compliance is still sabotage.

▲

fsflover 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The format wasn't the act of sabotage. The way they drove it through the standardization process was.

Why not both? You didn't provide any arguments against it.

	▲	hoistbypetard 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		What I mean is that it is just the internal binary format they were using before, converted to XML. I don't believe the file format was developed as an act of sabotage; it was just some internal shit they were using because that's how the product had evolved. Standardizing it as if it were an actual designed, open standard, was, however, very much an act of sabotage. That's my read, anyway.

▲

amiga386 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The format itself is an act of sabotage. The format is basically Microsoft's internal formats for Office, with all their bugs and flags and features, for which Microsoft already owned the only working implementation that works correctly.

They completely rejected what standardisation processes _do_, which is to subject the format to scrutiny, criticism and change, to make it universally useful and implementable.

Microsoft absolutely did not do that. They rammed through their proprietary bullshit and slapped an "open standards!" label on it.

https://www.consortiuminfo.org/opendocument-and-ooxml/the-co...

> 2.15.3.26 footnoteLayoutLikeWW8 (Emulate Word 6.x/95/97 Footnote Placement)

> This element specifies that applications shall emulate the behavior of a previously existing word processing application (Microsoft Word 6.x/95/97) when determining the placement of the contents of footnotes relative to the page on which the footnote reference occurs. This emulation typically involves some and/or all of the footnote being inappropriately placed on the page following the footnote reference.

> [Guidance: To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior, they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications. It is recommended that applications not intentionally replicate this behavior as it was deprecated due to issues with its output, and is maintained only for compatibility with existing documents from that application. end guidance]

> Typically, applications shall not perform this compatibility. This element, when present with a val attribute value of true (or equivalent), specifies that applications shall attempt to mimic that existing word processing application in this regard.

The format was _written_ to include specifics that only matter for one product - Microsoft Office - and don't even reveal in that format how those specifics should be interpreted faithfully. This is of ZERO use to anyone looking to make interoperable software that can make use of this standard. And that's the point - it's NOT an open standard, it's quite deliberately Microsoft's proprietary and closed bullshit with "open" shat on top of it, and a paid-for endorsement by a standards body that completely detonated its own credibility by approving it.

	▲	hoistbypetard 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Microsoft absolutely did not do that. They rammed through their proprietary bullshit and slapped an "open standards!" label on it. We are agreeing, I think. I was saying that the format was not developed as an act of sabotage. Ramming that format through standardization (without, as you note, doing any of the things standardization should do) so it could plausibly be labeled an open standard was the act of sabotage, IMO.