[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Common Word Processing Format
<snip/> >>> >>>Thank GODDESS for the OO XML project, Microsoft's partially reformed >>>Office XML format team, and all others who are saving us from the abject >>>horror of having to contemplate XHTML as an office file format. >>> >>>Are you kidding me? >>> >>>All arguments for XHTML everywhere eventually boil down to arguments >>>that rather than >>> >>><monty> >>> <python/> >>></monty> <snip/> > >>>I should write: >>> >>><div class="monty"> >>> <span class="python"/> >>></div class"monty"> >>> >>>No bloody thank you. Freedom from naming-by-committee is what drew me >>>to XML in the first place. I am not about to chuck that freedom for the >>>very false comfort of a protean generic identifier. <snip/> > >>Given that you can't do what you want in OOWrite and only painfully and >>with a bad UI in MSWord, why are you celebrating those formats? > > > Can't do what I want? I don't follow. > Sorry, I should have been clearer. You gave an example of a custom XML structure and a corresponding (incorrect) XHTML structure. I tried to say that what you want (your XML structure) cannot be done or be done with difficulty (in MSOffice). I was wondering why you "Thank GODDESS for the OO XML project, Microsoft's..." ? Even if we are not talking about the narrow scope of Massachusetts IT desire/dilemma, why are the Office formats better than XHTML? Why would someone who wants to keep custom formats for internal use want to use such a complex presentation format to publish? best, -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
|