[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Common Word Processing Format
So this point boils down to denying XHTML is a word processing format. Some disagree. Further, they make their case with published examples. Uglyness in markup is in the eye of the beholder. Formatted results speak for themselves. I think Uche may be going a bit further and saying that a common core for word processing isn't valuable in his shop. I take his word for that if that is what he intends. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and other states and nations following their lead assert that at scale, costs and sovereignty rights (open access, open markets as determined by sovereign states) this is not true for their procurement. So the issue is squarely back to what could be in such a common core or if it is better to simply select one of the available options. So far: o For some, XHTML + CSS + n are sufficient, are standard, and are cost efffective. This is a viable option. o For some, XHTML + CSS + n don't do enough or don't have sufficient support to make the task cost effective for some jobs. This is possibly so but the case has not been made. o The choice of OpenDoc vs MS OfficeXML comes down to procurement policy goals and costs for the Commonwealth. Others following this story will want to separate the politics of procurement provenance (aka, who gets to call the shots) from the issue of right tool for right job. They will want to follow this debate and the results. Given a market of server-side components, high level building tools, and just in time delivery with the web as the dominant distribution medium, it is too early to pick the winner even if one winner is possible. Note that this is a separate issue from goal-directed policies for procurement. It is evident that the market for the highly complex and costly word processing tools is shrinking. It is probably in the best interests of all of the vendors providing core components in a loss leader sales situation to pursue a common core for mutual self-interest. Otherwise, Google just wipes up the floor with you. len From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@f...] XHTML's GIs are designed for expressing Web documents. Office format GIs are designed for expressing office documents. My point is that I do not want to tunnel one within the other. > Why text:p is better than xhtml:p I just don't get. I never said one is better than the other. xhtml:p is fine for XHTML. text:p is fine for ODF. What's not to get?
|
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
|