[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Common Word Processing Format
Going long here. Sorry. We seem to be able to use MS Word here to do that. We rely on: o Templates (not much more than a copy of the outline with the styles set) o Common sense (don't be creative and the styleGoons won't come to see you). Controlling the chimps is expensive and the bonobos won't pay attention anyway so don't waste your time or money. Lots of things are going on here including politics that would make NicTheMach proud, but the trouble is we really don't have a way to say when something is a) open b) open enough c) good enough except to let the market choose. If there is a common core as claimed often over the years, if we want fewer XML languages, if we want an open market, we may just be wanting too much. The fact is, MSoc IS by market adoption the current de facto standard. The numbers are there. On the other hand, MSDoc is also a proprietary closed format with closed semantics and that is objectionable to some for different reasons but undeniably closed markets lead to de facto standards that regardless of certifying organization are still closed markets. So beyond the technical discussion which is most interesting is the market discussion which isn't nearly as sunny as advertised. Why? The technical discussion has implications about the commoditization of component software. Schwartz mostly gets this right but I'm not sure people are applying it to this case. MS is opening it up in Office 12 and most I think outside the usual AnyoneButMS crowd laud that, but it doesn't mean much in the medium to long term. Sure, you can develop for it but the possibility is that by the time you get to market there won't be one because the market may move on to a new architecture for the task in general (don't need complex word processing for the majority of tasks and those that do have apps that have reached a Nash equilibrium of feature sets, so upgrading isn't the delight or requirement it used to be). Given those, I can skip past that and ask some interesting questions: 1. Is there a common core? Is it possible that HTML/XHTML covers most of that ground? 2. Is the inflection point some see coming not one of converging XML WP formats but of a next-generation system where the desktop and browers disappear in favor of bundled just-in-time components delivered with the application/task/user/role/privilege/security in mind? IOW, skip the wpWarz and move right into the death of the browserAsCertainToBeOnTheDesktop discussions (see MAC86). Keep in mind: some word processors have features that are seldom used but ARE used by some. Now, who pays for those, what should they pay, and how should they procure them because we aren't really sharing tasks but costs and data across the enterprise and that means as customers, we aren't in control of our procurement. If there is a standard common core plus namespace-added features, then we are. Plugins are a fact of life in audio applications and almost every other commodity app I use EXCEPT word processors. One of the now aging arguments for thin clients was enabling the customer/management to control what is on the desktop rather than getting huge bundles of mostly unused features. The other side of the curve is the tendancy to bundle them anyway because software on a disk is like printing money; on the other hand, in an intermediated click economy, that isn't necessarily so. Curmudgeonly rant: iTunes, eBay, etc., [expletive deleted]. I don't like intermediated economies: that is the music business model. Producers hate it even as consumers get to like it because it pays those who do not much but make connections and say yes/no to your work. A customer gets to buy a song or component by the piece but the supplier isn't *allowed* to sell by the piece. That stinks by effectively raising barriers to competition and keeping the game in the hands of the bigCos. len -----Original Message----- From: Robert Koberg [mailto:rob@k...] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:12 PM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len) Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: Common Word Processing Format Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > What I am on about here is what is the common core? I think this misses what is going on. I think what is happening is not what is the best format, but what is /currently/ the easiest way to author documents. Authoring MSWord or OOWrite docs is most definitely not the best way to create a set of coherent, standardized and usable documents for an entity/organization/corporation. But it the easiest for the slightly computer savvy. One-off docs that satisfy the authors style whim and discretion, sure, but not the larger group. Corporate blogs approach something that could be cool, but are seriously limited. Since no one has created (or had the marketing force to explain/advertise...) a simple interface for users and been able to extol the virtues of why something is better than MSOffice/OO, we will be stuck in a slow evolution. -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
|