[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Webdeveloper article on MS-XML in Office 2000....

• From: Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@i...>
• To: "'xml-dev@i...'" <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 16:09:20 +0100

Could look at it another way and say that now anyone can create a file
that could be edited or viewed by MS tools. For example, you could have
a database of information that is exported as XML and then pushed
through one stylesheet to make it viewable by MS PowerPoint, and another
to make it editable by MS Word. And of course there's no reason why you
couldn't use another stylesheet to edit the relevant data in a Lotus
spreadsheet. None of these applications need even exist on the web
server. (I thought open file formats and structures was one of the goals
of XML.)

BTW, it would save a lot of time if someone came up with a stylesheet
that transforms everything into a conspiracy theory. I could then save
space on my hard-drive by just storing the original news item, and then
just use the stylesheet to 'view' the conspiracy theory when I needed
to. ;)

Regards,

Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent 
> Sent: 06 April 1999 15:50
> To: Buss, Jason A; 'xml-dev@i...'
> Subject: Re: Webdeveloper article on MS-XML in Office 2000....
> 
> 
> At 07:23 AM 4/6/99 -0500, Buss, Jason A wrote:
> >No one (that I can think
> >of) WANTS Microsoft to implement their own 'flavor' of XML.  
> The whole point
> >of XML (I gathered) was so that anyone's browser (or 
> application) could open
> >and read ranting.xml without fear of not having the "right" 
> software to read
> >the document. 
> 
> As far as I've seen (and I've avoided Office 2000 as much as possible)
> MS-XML is just another XML-based format.  I think they 
> combined the worst
> of HTML with the worst of XML in the particular way they 
> implemented it,
> but they have their own way of doing things.
> 
> The hardest issue I see with MS-XML is convincing people that 
> there is more
> to XML than this particular implementation.  Getting them to move from
> bloated documents full of extra junk to more streamlined XML documents
> taking advantage of style sheets (not just style elements) 
> and meaningful
> content structures will probably become more difficult as a 
> result of this
> product.
> 
> And that, I think, is exactly how certain companies want it.
> 
> Simon St.Laurent
> XML: A Primer
> Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies
> http://www.simonstl.com
> 
> xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, 
mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on
CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following
message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Webdeveloper article on MS-XML in Office 2000....
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Webdeveloper article on MS-XML in Office 2000....
• Next by Date: Re: XML Torture Test: Parsers Fail
• Previous by thread: RE: Webdeveloper article on MS-XML in Office 2000....
• Next by thread: RE: Webdeveloper article on MS-XML in Office 2000....
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread