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

RE: Common Word Processing Format

• To: "'davep@d...'" <davep@d...>
• Subject: RE: Common Word Processing Format
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 13:10:11 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

I worry less about the behaviors I haven't learned and more 
about the ones I can't explain.  Documentation varies widely. 
Given a mashup of applications from different servers and 
sources, simplicity and well-documented OR STANDARD features 
are the sine qua non of applications in composite.

Even if they are word processors.  Need new features?  Buy 
new plugins.  This works so well in the music application 
market (see ProTools) no one there thinks they should have 
to spend $1000 just to pull clicks and pops out of old recordings.

I don't think anyone intends to pry XML out of the developer's hands.  
Just consider markets where the end users see a federated page of 
slightly to definitely incompatible application behaviors.  Data is 
the least of our problems regards interoperability and the only 
one that XML has a partial solution for.

len


From: Dave Pawson [mailto:davep@d...]

Combining two of Lens points
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 13:36 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Given a market of server-side components,

> 
> It is evident that the market for the highly complex 
> and costly word processing tools is shrinking. 

Then add that to the fact that 80% of office (Writer |Word) users
only ever use 20% of the functionality,

The provision of a server based office tool that users can't mess with
(easy on support costs) starts to look inviting?

That way even if it is WYSIWYG, the organisation can enforce styles
such 
generating regular, usable XML from styled content is easy, never mind
viable.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Common Word Processing Format
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is it correct schema definition?
• Next by Date: Problem using xs:any
• Previous by thread: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Next by thread: RE: Common Word Processing Format
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread