Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Standards (was Re: Simple string conversion from UCS2 to
 ISO8859-1)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 14:52:05 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <vpsf25$3mj2g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vp9oml$3a0k5$1@dont-email.me>
 <87bjuvm68v.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vpciqb$3unkp$3@dont-email.me>
 <vpi4t3$10fsl$3@dont-email.me> <vpijsc$1eak4$3@dont-email.me>
 <vpjrr7$1qe9i$2@dont-email.me>
 <de55644ade1f0519ad6e353a4e32f301dcfff10c@i2pn2.org>
 <vpklh3$1qe9i$3@dont-email.me> <vpkqcn$22c6h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vpmcsg$2evft$1@dont-email.me> <vpnra4$2n1hg$2@dont-email.me>
 <vpp5sj$31c5o$1@dont-email.me> <vpq2n7$35inm$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2025 14:52:06 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bff3f8510287c0630e92bdcf8ff4873c";
	logging-data="3886160"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+b2YlVYJXYIdW6tWxS0Qo+"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NAJDJIpFeQbn+DK7/2tWG+LHpjM=
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
In-Reply-To: <vpq2n7$35inm$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4011

On 27.02.2025 17:09, David Brown wrote:
> On 27/02/2025 08:57, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>> On 26.02.2025 20:50, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 07:38:06 +0100, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... e.g. the *.doc format was often named "de facto standard", but
>>>> there was a long period of time neither a public document of that
>>>> "standard" nor was it a standard in the first place ...
>>>
>>> That is still the case.
>>
>> What do you mean? - That *.doc is still a de facto standard, or that
>> it is still called so?
> 
> .doc has not been the "de facto" standard for a very long time - .docx
> is, and has been for nearly 20 years.

Again,
>> My post had been about what some folks call "[de facto] standard".

It was not about specific formats whether they are valid now or have
been valid decades ago; it's actually 4 decades that we were confronted
with the MS phenomenon.

> 
>> I've heard of the newer XML-based *.docx format that it is publicly
>> documented and even an official formal standard. (If I'm misinformed
>> about that feel free to correct that.)
> 
> Again - you are two decades out of touch here!  [...]

You missed the point. (See above.)

> 
> (To be clear - MS is much more of a "team player" than it was twenty
> years ago.)

Please discuss MS's role in IT with others, not with me. I'm fed up,
not only with their inferior software and designs but also with MS
evangelists mindlessly repeating their nonsensical ads.

> 
>>
>> WRT the new XML-based formats all I can say is that I had a glimpse
>> into docx samples and turned away in disgust.
>>
> 
> [...]  For fun, take a .docx file [...]

Thanks, but that's nothing I consider to be fun (for me).

> [...]
> 
> Prior to that, MS Office had a brief muckaround with another XML format,
> and before that .doc was a binary format with no documentation and a
> format that changed with every version of the software.  Other software
> supported it to some extent, by reverse engineering.  Yes, at the time
> (prior to Office 2003), it was often referred to as the "de facto"
> standard, but in practice couldn't even work well between two different
> copies of MS Office if the versions didn't match or the computers had
> different fonts or printer settings.  (Yes, your computer's printer
> setup affected document compatibility with MS Office at that time.)

Amen.

Janis