[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
AndrewWatt2000@aol.com writes:
>http://www.linuxworld.com/2003/0513.murphy.html
>
>Following on the discussion about openness of XML etc etc a few weeks
>back, some on list might find the above URL an interesting read.
While I can't say I really disagree with (or like):
"Microsoft sees XML as a Web-programming language and not as a framework
for markup."
I don't think this writer has taken a close look at the subject he's
describing. Sure, WordML is a nasty object serialization that happens
to use XML. It's also navigable and readable, once you get past a few
key structural issues - third cousins three times removed is a bit weird
in XPath. It's fairly plain that they took the shortest possible route
to a predictable result rather than contemplating markup, and they
deserve to be taken to task for that, but that doesn't lead directly to
Murphy's conclusions.
I have no clue why the OpenOffice folks persist in describing the
Microsoft Office XML as a threat. If anything, it makes their own work
look good and makes it easier to build systems which share information
across application boundaries.
It might be nice if MSFT had adopted open standards all the way up their
XML stack, but I'm reasonably content that they are using more open
standards than they used to support. Thanks to toolkits that are widely
available, I can take their pileup and produce something that's
comfortable for me to use.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
