Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Common Word Processing Format
 On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 11:22 -0500, Robert Koberg wrote: > <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..." ? No. My gratitude for actual office formats is that it means I don't have to hack XHTML for the purpose. I made the *separate* point of what excessive XHTML advocacy boils down to, and I clearly was not expecting to author my custom XML in an office format. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I repeat: """ Umm. No. I don't want to tunnel my markup within OOXML any more than I want to tunnel it within XHTML. In my preference, my example would look like: <monty> <python/> </monty> My point was: use the best format for the task, and don't be afraid to invent a new format if it's others are fitting a square peg into a round hole, but never, no never play the tunnelling-markup-in-protean GI game of <div class="monty"> <span class="python"/> </div> *OR* <text:p text:style-name="monty"> <text:span text:style-name="python"/> </text:p> Unless that's really sensibly an XHTML class or an OOXML style. """ > 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? Because they express the semantics for office application idioms directly, rather than tunnelled within XHTML GIs. 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. -- 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/ 
|
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
|
|||||||||
