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

Re: Common Word Processing Format

• To: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>
• Subject: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:15:51 -0500
• Cc: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <cc159a4a0511290658r2d585483y634109a2d3a7fb75@m...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0BB1FC22@h...> <cc159a4a0511290658r2d585483y634109a2d3a7fb75@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Macintosh/20041206)

Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> On 11/29/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@i...> wrote:
> 
>>Spy Vs Spy aside for the moment, and following the thought experiment at Tim
>>Bray's blog:
>>
>>How much of a common word processing format subset is represented by HTML?
>>How much isn't?  How much could be added by namespaced behaviors?
>>
>>IOW, don't we have one of these?
> 
> 
> Interesting question.  Early in my career I spent a lot of time with
> SGML.  Given that the target in those days was document publishing I
> don't think there where many constructs missing that Word it it's kin
> would possess with the exception of behaviours.  When HTML came along
> I was first surprised that so many of the SGML constructs had made it
> into the spec. but there where also times when I found things missing
> that I sort of wanted.
> 
> How much is missing?  I bet I have an IBM SGML reference card in my
> attic somewhere, building the feature checklist would be easy... 
> However, the need for macros and behaviours would be all new (to
> standardised HTML), so although it might be a good starting point, I
> somehow doubt that it's the end point?  I suspect you're still going
> to have some battles to win before any new standard emerges.


Wouldn't:

<object .../>
<link .../>
<script .../>

handle anything not explicitly definied?

I don't get the push for ODF. I don't get why XHTML isn't all you need 
for a common document format. Transforming configuration and content to 
XHTML makes much more sense to me. Keeping styling info in a separate 
and app/site wide file makes much more sense to me.

best,
-Rob


> 
> <snip/>
> 
> --
> Peter Hunsberger
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Common Word Processing Format
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>

• References:
  • Common Word Processing Format
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • Re: Common Word Processing Format
    • From: Peter Hunsberger <peter.hunsberger@g...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Common Word Processing Format
• Next by Date: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Previous by thread: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Next by thread: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread