rant on pathetic example of Microsoft FUD

[Greg Rundlett]

I was developing a CD-ROM product which contains multiple Microsoft 
PowerPointless (tm) presentations.  The CD would launch an html Table of 
Contents page using auto-run.  To make the TOC page layout the same as 
the .ppt files, I simply created a slide in PowerPoint with appropriate 
links to the other CD materials, and then exported it as an HTML file.

Microsoft PowerPoint's idea of HTML is not anything you would recognize 
surfing the web and 'viewing source'.  Of course, this is not news to 
anyone who has ever seen the cruft that Microsoft Word spits out as 
HTML.  These apps speak their own strange dialect of an otherwise 
perfectly standardized and specified language.  This strange tongue 
seems to have been originated by a multi-billionaire cult leader from 
Redmond, WA.  His followers have unwittingly or through no intelligence 
of their own spread this Word to the far reaches of the planet.

I was ready to sic tidy on it, but figured if my browser can ignore[1] 
all this crud, then I will not bother.  However, I then discovered their 
fiendish plot.  Not only do they create 10x the amount of needed code 
just to do the HTML and CSS; they also generate a crateful of 
JavaScript, including a browser-detection routine that basically says:

    "You're not using Microsoft Internet Explorer.  This page may
    contain features unsupported by your browser.  Do you wish to continue?"

Now they've turned a simple HTML page with a table into something that 
sounds potentially dangerous.  (I had better go get that Internet 
Explorer v. 4.01 so I don't have to worry about these kind of problems.)

Actually, the Microsoft process for converting a simple PowerPoint slide 
to HTML is even worse.  The TOC page that I wanted to produce 
(README.html) actually contains no content in any way related to the 
original document.  It's sole purpose in life is to be the gatekeeper to 
the true content file (which is an even more bloated and twisted variety 
of HTML).  That file is stored off in it's own directory, with a bunch 
of other linked files that are apparently needed in MicroHsofTMeaL to 
reproduce a simple table with links.

I call this whole thing pathetic because it is exactly opposite of what 
their customer needs or wants.  It's pathetic because they are causing 
confusion on the part of the user where there should be none at all.  
It's pathetic because they don't bother to create software that gives 
the user/developer greater control and flexibility, and instead go out 
of their way to develop 'features' that are designed to promote their 
business in a way that defeats their customer's goal.

Why don't they create a converter that says: 
Saving to HTML, choose your preferred output format:
  HTML 4.01
  XHTML 1
Preferred image format:
  jpg
  png

D'ohhh.  If they did that, then they would have to call it 
www.OpenOffice.org

I figured OpenOffice would do a better job at creating the HTML file.  
Unfortunately, as well as OpenOffice.org handles conversion to and from 
hidden Microsoft proprietary file formats, it was unable to produce an 
acceptable html export, because it left out the hyperlinks altogether, 
and simply created a page-sized graphic.  I'll bet that Microsoft uses a 
completely non-standard format to represent the hyperlinks in 
PowerPoint, making them practically impenetrable for the makers of 
OpenOffice.org.  Or, perhaps this is an area that ooo can improve in.  I 
created a simple ooo impress file containing a single hyperlink, then 
exported that to html, flash, and pdf.  All converters failed to 
preserve the hyperlink.  At least the ooo software didn't scare me into 
thinking that I was about to ruin my computer by doing something 
unsupported.

-Greg

1. As specified, non-standard words shall be ignored by speakers of the 
true language.