I think the rationale is that big chunk of users are not programmers but they are Excel users. I get requests from end users for Excel export capability all the time. They know Excel and how to manipulate data in it. Sometimes if time constraints dictate it, you just make available an html table inside a file with xls extension and you instantly got yourself some very happy end users. With the least of cost. For the more sophisticated users, they can just rename the file back to html extension, or open it in Excel or similar program and then export that data to cvs, or simple text or whatever they want (e.g. parse the data out of the html/xml table, etc.) It's more difficult to ask the more common guy to rename the file to .xls than to you ask the expert to rename .xls to .html, if they want the real format of the file.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Joey K Tuttle <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree, interesting discussion. I think it is amazing/appalling/shocking > how often similar things occur in the "real world". One doesn't have to > look far for surprising examples of bad programming. > > I have a Morgan Stanley account and use their online client services. When > looking at a transaction reporting page, they offer a button to request a > download for analysis (pretty standard stuff). Rather than give a choice of > format, they quickly and efficiently download a file named > "AccountActivity.xls" > > OK, maybe using a proprietary format for Excel is a little questionable, > but several other spreadsheet programs accept it as the "industry standard" > .... but hey, when I look at the downloaded file I see the following first > few lines: > > ~~~ > > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" " > http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/**DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd<http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd> > "> > <html> > <head> > <title>ActivitySearchExcel</**title> > <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft Visual Studio > .NET 7.1" /> > <meta name="CODE_LANGUAGE" content="C#" /> > <meta name="vs_defaultClientScript" content="JavaScript" /> > <meta name="vs_targetSchema" content="http://schemas.** > microsoft.com/intellisense/ie5<http://schemas.microsoft.com/intellisense/ie5> > **" /> > > </head> > <body> > <form name="Form1" method="post" > action="ActivitySearchExcel.**aspx" id="Form1"> > ~~~ > > Ummm, that isn't what I would expect from a file named > AccountActivity.xls. Now it is true that newer versions of MS Excel will > open the file and display the data in a worksheet, but things like number > formats and currency symbols are not part of the deal. > > When I have tried to complain about the "error" of naming an HTML file > with a .xls extension, I have been unable to make any progress at all. > Helpful technical support people are willing to guide me through things > like adjusting the column widths and adding format information in Excel, > but seem to have no concept of why I might prefer a simple plain text (say > .csv) file. > > I can imagine that if one were to look into how the documents are > generated, it would show interesting things like half the time going to > parsing XML or some other similarly relevant activity. > > This kind of nonsense is rampant in commercial systems. > > Anyone in this forum (maybe even working at MS) have a rationale for > naming an HTML file with a .xls extension? (and distributing it to the > world....) > > > > > On 2013/05/10 15:19 , Steven Taylor wrote: > >> to my >>> distress saw that over 50% of the expenditure of time is at parsing XML. >>> This is of course XML used in data transfer >>> >> >> Ouch. Where do you begin on unravelling that one? >> >> On 10 May 2013, at 22:39, Jo van Schalkwyk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi All >>> >>> I've been watching this thread with interest. Regarding where we waste >>> time, the other day I looked at an assessment of a large hospital system >>> (where things are almost notoriously a bit sluggish, and the information >>> management chaps are always fretting about efficiency, or lack thereof; >>> we >>> won't even talk about their non-parameterised SQL queries) and to my >>> distress saw that over 50% of the expenditure of time is at parsing XML. >>> This is of course XML used in data transfer, and not in its original (and >>> sane) use as a means of formatting documents. >>> Jesus wept. >>> >>> Jo. >>> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------** > ---------- > For information about J forums see > http://www.jsoftware.com/**forums.htm<http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
