RE: Common Word Processing Format
Ok. First, the interest is not RSS/Atom but HTML/XHTML. Then possibly all of the embeddable formats. I don't edit graphics in Word. I import them. Would that be different for ODF? Probably not. Blogs are interesting in that the sites I am familiar with have the editor in the site. Is it good enough (remember question c) for most word processing apps? No. Probably not even half. On the other hand, there are existence proofs for using HTML for high end publishing. Is that the right level of complexity for the majority of word processing given, as a poster stated on Scoble's blog, that it doesn't have 5 to 10% of the features of a word processing format? (The point is to deliver to the end user only as much functionality as they need for a task to keep the complexity low and costs commensurate.) As to a structural editor per your description: that's ok for some. Some really don't want to know much more than titles, lists, sections, subsections, paras, tables, and image editing. And if functionality can be loaded on demand given the access and the credit card #, ;-), that is enough. What one wouldn't want from the procurement perspective is to be forced to buy from the high end of the pricelist to get the basic stuff for every desk. From where I sit, Bray's namespaced thought experiment makes sense. Always has. Structural editors make sense. Always have (been doing this a long long time). If I don't want spreadsheets, I don't want the spreadsheet editor. I might want a renderer because I can't control what people send me. I might only want a spreadsheet editor occasionally. None of this seems mysterious or provocative. What is questionable is if the argument that having open formats guarantees a market. Having an open containerized format might but as in the example of DoD, when the technology changes or the environment changes, the market model changes. So when comparing ODF and Office, one might want to compare them for the cost of initial installs and just-in-time upgrades. I sort of doubt the Massachusetts Senate and/or executive branch think in those terms. The ITheads can. But both should understand costs. Monocultures not only expose the user to viral risk and can restrict access to public information, but they are lousy at cost control. len From: Robert Koberg [mailto:rob@k...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > If it is as claimed that HTML/XHTML only has 5 to 10% of the features > of word processing: > > 1. What is the world's largest publishing medium (the web) so successful > using only 5 to 10% of the features of word processing? I sense a logical fallacy (not really sense it, just have experienced it). It is not that only 5-10% are used, it is that 5-10% are made useable by the software that allow publishing to web. Blog entries are not the be all and end all... This is why I said that the battle is for useable 'write' programs. The web doesn't have it yet. I would also say that desktop pub systems dont't either, but... When an organization matures in its web publishing there are needs for more structure (and, of course there is a need for freeform). When structure is needed it is welcome as it saves the user time and resolves confusing choices. There is also the need to be able able to change templates/style and not use drones to do it. I would not want to see what I think you are proscribing. I want to see a good WYSIWYG, schema validating editor that can choose between different content types (FAQ, Callout, Gloosary-Item, whatever) and allows for a free-for-all content type. Content pieces should be separate. They should be able to be placed where needed in whatever presentation. (Our CMS, http://livestoryboard.com , has that now except I want something that is more usable for those accustomed to MSWord). Xopus is the best available currently. I wish there was better and cross browser/platform. best, -Rob
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