[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MS Word as XML editor?
- From: Michael Champion <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 09:52:23 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dimitris Dimitriadis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'Williams, Tim'" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:44 AM
Subject: SV: MS Word as XML editor?
> So, I think going for a pure XML editor is the only way to go, except of
> course in cases where you produce XML at the complexity degree of XHTML.
I strongly agree. Products such as XMetaL are very easy for end-users to use
once they've been setup with schemas, styleshseets, and some UI customization
for the specific application. It's probably easier for a typical XML
developer to learn how to customize XMetaL than it is to setup all the
scripts, styles, templates etc. that a Word add-in would require.
Finally, "native XML everywhere" really does make it easy to build robust
systems out of off-the-shelf components. If you use a Word addin, you're
going to be building a lot of proprietary scripts, etc. and be locked in to
specific vendors' tools. If you build a native XML editing application with
XMetaL or something similar, you'll be able to re-use the DTDs, stylesheets,
DOM code, HTML templates, webserver/database interfaces, etc. even if you
This seems almost like a no-brainer to me. We all promote our XML products
because they're built on open, interoperable standards ... if we think our XML
solutions are worth buying, we should be buying "synergistic" XML products
from others, right? If we need XML content, use an XML authoring system! If
you don't and want free-form content, use Word. If you need both, use the
right tool for the job at hand.
"We must all hang together, or else we'll hang separately"