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

RE: Common Word Processing Format

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Subject: RE: Common Word Processing Format
• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 17:48:48 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0BB1FC7A@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0BB1FC7A@h...>
• Reply-to: davep@d...

On Tue, 2005-12-06 at 16:21 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> Maybe.  Maybe not.  Watch Intellisense turn an XML comment 
> into a left pointy dash and a right arrow.   Then you care. 
> It's about documentation and reliability.  I expected what 
> I entered to stay as I entered it; the app had other ideas. 
> That's the sort of thing I mean.  
In which case you should know better, or to be precise
you should know that Redmond knows better than you what you want!
Come on Len, get with it <grin/>
It's a common cry with 'intelligent' tools.
(no, you define intelligent)



> >It's the data that matters. [Insert your own quote here]
> >Not the (todays) app that generates it.
> >That's the winner for XML I think.
> 
> For XML yes, but not when we begin debating common formats, 
> common frameworks for them, etc.  
Is this where we cry that XML == what we used to do with ASCII?
I wasn't thinking as high off the ground as you Len.
Given Frame, PDF, ps, paper, Quark to convert,
I guess I'm ecstatic when I see XML.... unless its
generated as a byproduct of some print engine acting
like an A0 plotter on LSD. 
  There ought to be a name for that class of XML...



> All sides at the table have a piece to speak.  I want to hear them 
> and that usually mean shutting off my filters or causes.  The 
> reason for keeping this thread going after the Atlanta town hall 
> is to get more issues up front.   Uche needs and wants his independence 
> and he gets what he wants.  XML is made that way.  The admin needs 
> those productivity features.  Uche may get in her/his way.  MS is 
> trying to keep their customers happy and make money.  Some want to 
> take some shine off their dollars.  Lots of sides, but not all of 
> those are issues, just sides.   An admin may not want to use an 
> XML structured editor.  Given what I saw in early versions of 
> .Net programming tools, I don't either.  They didn't work very 
> well.  
> 
> So miles to go and all that.

I'll agree with that. 
Needed, some bright spark to see through the crud
to what users want?


-- 
Regards, 

Dave Pawson
XSLT + Docbook FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• References:
  • RE: Common Word Processing Format
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Is it correct schema definition?
• 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