[rfc-i] Containment considered harmful

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Sun May 27 05:45:32 PDT 2012


Yes, Word 2010 is outdate because they haven't actually fixed anything
since 2003.

The drawing tools still barely work. It takes six mouseclicks to paste text
without carrying over formatting. By default an in document reference is to
the whole text of a caption rather than just 'Figure 3' or whatever.
Captions really don't work right and nor does the rather pathetic attempt
at managing references. Management of compound documents is a science
project.


I would happily switch to something else but pretty much every alternative
is a clone of Word and copies the same flaws. The same is true of
spreadsheets which all carry over the limitations of Lotus 1-2-3 which in
turn is limited by VisiCalc.

The only reason I use Word as opposed to other tools is that I haven't
(yet) found an HTML editor that supports an outline mode. Since this was
originally introduced in 1983 by a Caxton product, I don't think it
unreasonable to hope that it would appear in a recent product.


Seems to me that development of office type tools basically stopped twenty
years ago. Microsoft is just going to keep to the old GM strategy of
churning out cosmetic upgrades of the same old chasis and engine. I
remember being in the auto store and seeing a manual that was more or less
'Rear engine models 1953-1985'. Which pretty much tells you everything you
know about why the company lost market share to the European and Japanese
makes.


And no Open Office is no different as far as I can tell.


On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Joe Hildebrand <jhildebr at cisco.com> wrote:

> On 5/27/12 12:56 AM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>
> > Word 2010 is outdated?
>
> When producing HTML, apparently, as evidenced by its output.
>
> >> I don't think you've shown that there's a big difference in cost for a
> >> competent programmer.
> >
> > Show us all your competence by providing those tools - including a
> > full-featured visual editor - for your solution then.
>
> Working on it.
>
> > Or are you intending to set us up for a "solution for which a program
> exists,
> > but the margin of this email is too small to show it"?
>
> Nope.  And again, thank you for the condescending tone.  I apologize for
> being so infuriating to you that you feel the need to lash out.
>
> I also apologize for continuing to harp on your manners.  However, I'm
> going
> to continue to insist that you treat everyone on the list with respect.
>
> > Right. Except that in being not simpler, you are intending to support
> future
> > tools and future uses.
>
> Yes.  So that the people that come along 40 years from now have a path
> forward from what we build between now and then.  When those folks are
> arguing with the old-timer HTML folks, hopefully they'll at least have the
> data they need to translate the format we're talking about here into
> whatever crazy stuff they've come up with.
>
> Attempts at forward compatibility seem like a reasonable goal for a
> long-term archival format.
>
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
>
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/attachments/20120527/8d3a964c/attachment.htm>


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list