This site
Essentials
Spec Issues
Other languages
Resources
Copyright (c) the respective authors. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 License.
Stephane Rodriguez
RSS: new posts
Stephane Rodriguez 1206119516|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
This article illustrates the futility and the dangerousness of the heavily publicized Custom XML feature in OOXML.
http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/2008/03/custom-xml-what-custom-xml.html
arebenti 1206123558|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Since "Custom XML" does not mean "Custom" "XML", we have to rely on ECMA 376's definition of such thing. The first surprise is that there is a notion of "Custom XML markup" and a notion of "Custom XML data".
The second surprise is that the notion of "Custom XML markup" only appears in the documentation for Word documents. If we assume that this "Custom XML markup" will be used to bind the "Custom XML data" to the document at run-time, we can infer from ECMA 376 that this is only made possible for Word documents.
In other words, whatever "Custom XML" is, it is only fully implemented for Word, so it should be called "Custom XML in Word". When Microsoft marketing people are trying to sell us "Custom XML" as a feature of OOXML, it is a lie. Let's create a table of what we have just learned.
I noticed that you used the phrase "lie" several times recently. Do you think it is intentional, deception?
Stephane Rodriguez 1206129384|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Microsoft Office teams have a long habit of shipping unfinished products, so the marketing message is always a lie of some sort. Sometimes it's a variant, though still a lie : for instance, Office 2003 introduced native XML support. Just the marketing people forgot to tell their customers that the XML features were only available in the professional edition of Office 2003, not the standard edition.
Stephane Rodriguez, 1206129384|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
stegu 1206130600|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
There is an old saying, "Don't attribute to malice what would be appropriately explained by incompetence", but the level of incompetence required to explain some of the marketing fluff coming from Microsoft lately would be astronomical. In this case I find malice and intentional lies rather more likely than incompetence, particularly considering the high level of attention this issue ought to have within the company right now.
