• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re:What is XML's appropriate place in an office suite?
• From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
• Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 10:23:20 +0100

 >[Andrew Watt]
 ><for_discussion>
 >Re-examining some of the recent discussion it seems to me that some
 >of the pleas for fully open XML in office suites is simply thinly veiled 
special
 >pleading for the XML geek lobby.
 ></for_discussion>

XML's role *can* be to claw back ownership of data from application vendors 
and give it back to the users.

Anyone with a large collection of wordprocessor/spreadsheet/presentation 
documents out there could do worse
that think about who really *owns* those documents right now.

However, only the syntax of XML is mandatory for compliance. Openness is 
optional.

I fear or OfficeML's in that regard. Without documented semantics its just 
a bag of
tags in which XML compliance gains you very little. It certainly does not 
shift ownership
back to the data creator.

As for open source or open data - I'll take Open Data any day (and no, open 
source does not
imply open data). Openness is an attitude - not a syntax.

Open Source/Open Data:
         http://www.itworld.com/nl/ebiz_ent/02112003/

Sean

http://seanmcgrath.blogspot.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re:What is XML's appropriate place in an office suite?
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: XML Search Engines (Was: ANN: White Paper ...)
• Next by Date: What is the data here?
• Previous by thread: Re: What is XML's appropriate place in an office suite?
• Next by thread: Re: Re:What is XML's appropriate place in an office suite?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread