RE: Whitepapers and ScreenShots of Office 11 XML Features
I would be interested in someone explaining just how an XML Schema for any WYSIWYG system can be "open" for some qualitative definition of "open". It is one thing to take a company product line, create a schema and label it "open", then use the lightning speed of web hype to drive a market toward it; it is quite another thing to create a schema which upwardly or downwardly translates into a sufficient amount of information to serve as a guarantor of portability. There ain't no free lunch. That isn't a dig at MS. I am just as skeptical of the OASIS version. I have this memory of Java touted as the "open" language only to have the skepticism that it is just another "product" be confirmed. Accepting any XML as "openness" is a defensible position. It isn't always an effective one. So I'd like to see the arguments that defend any of these as "open", it being the case that simply having luminaries on the design team for a schema based on a company product isn't enough. That is the oldest dodge in the markup business. Is there a set of properties that define "open"? Is there a subset of properties of all office systems that will make that cut? My intuition is that at the end of the debate, it will come down to a system-spec'd schema (one per), and the ability to apply user-defined schemas. It seems to me that is precisely what MS proposes and has implemented and that the system-spec'd schema (OASIS/Sun vs MS) is a Spy vs Spy. len From: Sam Hunting [mailto:shunting@e...] Has anyone looked under the hood to see what the MS markup is actually like, and whether it bears any resemblance at all to the efforts for XML office document markup specification now under way at OASIS?
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format