Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th Apr 2008 20:14 UTC
Microsoft "Microsoft will make available the preliminary versions of technical documentation for the protocols built into Microsoft Office 2007, SharePoint Server 2007 and Exchange Server 2007. This documentation, which defines how these high-volume Microsoft products communicate with some of its other products, is 14000 pages and is in addition to the 30000 pages posted when the software giant first introduced its new Interoperability Principles last month. They will be made available April 8."
Thread beginning with comment 308796
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Show me
by sbergman27 on Tue 8th Apr 2008 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Show me"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

So basically what you're saying is that you'll judge the quality of the MS spec based on the technical abilities of the developers who use them in their own products?

How disingenuous of you to intentionally misreprsent what I said. History demonstrates clearly that there are plenty of developers in this world capable of taking a spec, written and presented in good faith, and creating something good and useful from it. That fact is not in question.

It is the "written and presented in good faith" part which I question.

If some of the talented developers, whom we know to exist, are able to run with this and create something of value, I will gladly give credit where credit is due. And that includes giving credit to MS if events prove their current campaign to be genuine. Until then, I am withholding judgement, but remaining skeptical.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Edited 2008-04-09 00:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[3]: Show me
by sappyvcv on Wed 9th Apr 2008 03:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Show me"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

He didnt "misrepresent" what you said at all. Producing a decent spec does not guarantee someone will write an equal or better implementation. You're basing the quality of the spec on an implementation instead of letting it stand on its own. Hell, before even examining it yourself.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Show me
by jayson.knight on Wed 9th Apr 2008 03:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Show me"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

How disingenuous of you to intentionally misreprsent what I said. History demonstrates clearly that there are plenty of developers in this world capable of taking a spec, written and presented in good faith, and creating something good and useful from it. That fact is not in question.

It is the "written and presented in good faith" part which I question.

If some of the talented developers, whom we know to exist, are able to run with this and create something of value, I will gladly give credit where credit is due. And that includes giving credit to MS if events prove their current campaign to be genuine. Until then, I am withholding judgement, but remaining skeptical.

Why do you have a problem with that?


I have a problem with you basically assuming that the problem automatically lies with Microsoft. I am not going to get in some sort of OSS vs Closed source pissing match, however all of the MS Office products have 20+ years of coding behind them...why would the spec be anything BUT extremely complicated and verbose? If it took MS 20 years to get these products to where they are today, it stands to reason that duplicating them would be a very difficult, expensive process.

I also hate to burst your bubble, but history actually shows that for every one good developer such as the ones you are alluding to, there are a hundred worthless ones just waiting to screw up their interpretation of a spec. I'd venture as far as to say that maybe 1% of the developers in the world actually have the technical breadth to wade through the MS specs and understand them, much less actually make a working product from them.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Show me
by Deviate_X on Wed 9th Apr 2008 19:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Show me"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

You cannot judge a specification by the product alegedly produced from it - thats simply ignornace.

Edited 2008-04-09 19:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2