, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

I don't know a whole lot about Office, but I was pretty sure the reason for the Office XML was to do with complying with European regulations.

While that may be part of what gave birth to OOXML it was really all about the money and control. Many of government agencies were yammering about making open standard document formats a requirement. Here's just a sample from Mary Jo. Microsoft got caught with it's pants down as ODF beat them to certification. Microsoft was worried that their beloved Office was going to be tossed aside in favor of Open Office by these government agencies. In response Microsoft had to fast track OOXML through the standards review which many would agree was ugly at best.

In any case the trigger that caused OOXML to be created doesn't detract from the fact that it's very nature makes it more suitable for supporting editing of documents by applications that can't support the full feature set -- all the while without corrupting the document. Like I said before I doesn't mean it's free to implement but it's a whole lot closer than you suggest.

*snip*

You seem to consistently mistake my attitude as being one of saying "MS don't need to add that feature" as some kind of "defending" Microsoft. It's actually quite the opposite. I'm saying that they should be implementing better features, because if you only get to pick say 6 new features over the next few months, I'd rather they be ones that people want, rather than ones like VBA on a WP that so far as I can tell, few if anybody actually need.

I hope you can see how easy it would be to make the "mistake" when you do so much of your defense here by taking things out of context or changing the scope. When you do that it makes you appear very desperate and at least in my book seem very disingenuine in your efforts. Even with great explanations like this:

I'm not saying all features are bad. I'm just saying that at Microsoft they have the phrase "all features start at minus 100 points".