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

Re: Common Word Processing Format

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 12:30:20 -0700
• In-reply-to: <BAY22-F26F66620DD7F8F731C553E994C0@p...>
• Organization: Fourthought, Inc.
• References: <BAY22-F26F66620DD7F8F731C553E994C0@p...>

On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 10:08 -0800, Michael Champion wrote:
> >Of an office format is too complex for your need, then of course I
> >wouldn't advocate it.  My point is that reducing all use cases to XHTML
> >is just as bad.
> 
> 
> At least as I understand Len's point (from the XML 2005 townhall) the 
> problem is that real people have a need for real document format standards 
> that are really supported and  really open TODAY.  What MS will do in Office 
> 12 (or what can be done in Office 11 with some user training) , and what 
> could be done in ODF once the little detail of deployment and conversion and 
> training is out of the way, is not very helpful to people with the problem 
> now.  (X)HTML is good enough for a *lot* of these use cases, is univerally 
> supported, and both a de facto and formal standard.  So what's wrong with 
> it?

Umm, don't you have the same deployment and conversion issue with XHTML?


> 1) It's easy for easy things but very hard for hard things.
> 2) It is a classic "worse is better" solution which makes geeks gag.

Since when did geeks gag at worse-is-better?  Geeks *invented*
worse-is-better.

I'm sorry, but you're being *way* too general here.  Using XHTML to
represent a CV is worse-is-better, and it makes sense to me.  Using
XHTML to for the entire class of office documents could also be
considered worse-is-better but it sure as hell does not make sense to
me.

There are shades of worse-is-better, so the expression is not much use
in this conversation.

> 3) It doesn't strike a blow against the Empire.

Huh?  What empire?  What are you on about?


> OK, but:
> 
> 1) Most of the stuff that really has to be authored and read by anyone, 
> anytime fits within HTML, as shown by its dominance on the Web.

And have you checked with real users whether they prefer Office apps or
Web authoring apps?

> 2) Call it "disruptive innovation" and the suits will be happy, and they 
> make the decisions.

No comment on buzzword bingo.

> 3) The Empire is going to support whatever it has to support to make a buck, 
> don't kid yourself.  ODF might scratch the black armor a bit, not cut off 
> Darth's breathing apparatus, even *if* it proliferates rapidly.

Are you talking to me?  In my post I posited that *Microsoft* Office XML
alongside ODF as a better approach for office docs than XHTML.

> I (and my little core of the Empire) would be very happy if this scenario 
> doen't play out, but custom schemas and even free-form XML markup 
> proliferate.  Diversity and customization of markup just creates more demand 
> for the stuff that most of us build or explain. But I'm not going to hold my 
> breath.

Umm.  If you haven't noticed.  Creating custom XML vocabularies is the
*norm* in IT, not the exception.  I wouldn't hold my breath that
everyone is going to ditch MyDepartmentML in favor of XHTML everywhere,
and I'm glad for that.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                               Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net                    http://fourthought.com
http://copia.ogbuji.net                   http://4Suite.org
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/

• Prev by Date: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Next by Date: RE: Common Word Processing Format
• Previous by thread: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Next by thread: Fwd: Common Word Processing Format
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread