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

Re: Word 2003 schemas available

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Word 2003 schemas available
• From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:58:38 +1100
• In-reply-to: <3FBA4100.7020903@a...>
• References: <Pine.SOL.4.33.0311180436020.6786-100000@p...> <3FBA182C.7010302@l...> <3FBA4100.7020903@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030428

Alaric B Snell wrote:

>
> I'd agree with that! Although most of you here on XML-DEV probably 
> think of me as rabidly anti-XML, that's just because I disagree with 
> using it for data interchange - things like DocBook are much easier to 
> do in XML than SGML, an absolute pleasure. I'd choose DocBook/XML in 
> Emacs over Word (for writing books, anyway - letters really need a 
> different document structure) any day!
>  

Personally I have always found DOCBOOK hideous to use. There are always 
so many
layers of markup, I always susect that it was written with some 
particular editor
in mind.

My general advice is not to use XML at all unless you are working on a 
large-enough
project to make the tooling up worthwhile.  Word has been famously not 
geared for large
documents, but FrameMaker and Word Perfect are pretty good, in my 
experience.

I find authoring in simple HTML or even unmarked-up blank-line separated 
paragraphs, then marking
the document up in the target DTD is a pretty efficient approach. That 
way you can defer
having to understand the minutae of structure and tools until after you 
have finished thinking
about your words.

Has anyone looked at the Word 2003 schemas? What are the advances on  
RTF? Do they have
real tables and  do they have autonumbering asynchonous with the element 
structure?

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • RE: Word 2003 schemas available
    • From: Murali Mani <mani@C...>
  • Re: Word 2003 schemas available
    • From: Stephan Wiesner <swiesner@l...>
  • Re: Word 2003 schemas available
    • From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Blog Pruning
• Next by Date: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Previous by thread: Re: Word 2003 schemas available
• Next by thread: RE: Word 2003 schemas available
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread