[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML in Office 200X
At 11:36 01/08/2000 -0500, Imran Rashid wrote: > > 1/ I agree with the first step: use XSLT to transform a waggaziggyML > > document into an OfficeML document. I already do something similar by > > applying an XSLT stylesheet to an XML source to generate an RTF > > documentation. A well-documented, "standard" OfficeML would be useful > here. > >though I could use XSLT to transform my document to RTF, I think thats >several orders of magnitude harder than transforming to some other ML. I >believe other XML developers have a very similar attitude. I agree (although RTF is less hard than it seems at first glance; cutting and pasting unreadable formatting instructions from sample Word-RTF files to your XSLT stylesheet works surprisingly well.) > > The target software would have to support so many things that it > > would be more simple for it to support OfficeML directly. This is what most > > word processors do already by supporting RTF. > >I would be much more inclined to add support for RTF if I could use my >existing XML parser, than having to add a whole new RTF parser. adding >support for OfficeML is something we could do incrementally, but adding >support for RTF would be a large undertaking we would have to be committed >too. The more we discuss this, the more I feel that OfficeML may (or should) be functionally equivalent of RTF, and there could be a 1:1 mapping between RTF formatting instructions (or bracket) and XML tag. The advantage of OfficeML vs RTF would be syntax: XML is more readable than RTF, and there more ways to parse it. You could still implement or support OfficeML gradually. > > Or maybe the target software does not really want to display the entire > > Word document, but only to extract and display some specific data in your > > document. But how will you extract useful data from an OfficeML > > document? The problem here is that Word (and thus OfficeML) does not > > separate data from presentation. > >though Word doesn't seperate data from presentation, users can do things in >reasonable ways that still make data evident. For instance, emphasis should >be added by using an emphasis style, instead of just making text bold. or >using tables over tab-delimited text. > everything won't be perfect, but I think OfficeML will be a big step >forward. It seems reasonable, if you accept to spend time on testing the results each time you add new kinds of XML sources or applications. > > Of course, > > you could create "islands" in your document to store additional > information :) > >actually, I don't really think data "islands" are that bad an idea. (of >course we wouldn't use the reserved "xml" name.) for instance, suppose >somebody wants to create a document that uses MathML as well as VoiceML. >Someone might turn to our program to author the MathML, and another program >for the VoiceML. But it would be nice if after creating the VoiceML, they >could save their document and open it up in our program. They could embed >the VoiceML data in some container tag (which our program knows it should >leave untouched), edit the MathML, and save again. Wouldn't you use namespaces to do that?
|
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
|