OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Common Word Processing Format

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> On 11/29/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
>>Spy Vs Spy aside for the moment, and following the thought experiment at Tim
>>Bray's blog:
>>How much of a common word processing format subset is represented by HTML?
>>How much isn't?  How much could be added by namespaced behaviors?
>>IOW, don't we have one of these?
> Interesting question.  Early in my career I spent a lot of time with
> SGML.  Given that the target in those days was document publishing I
> don't think there where many constructs missing that Word it it's kin
> would possess with the exception of behaviours.  When HTML came along
> I was first surprised that so many of the SGML constructs had made it
> into the spec. but there where also times when I found things missing
> that I sort of wanted.
> How much is missing?  I bet I have an IBM SGML reference card in my
> attic somewhere, building the feature checklist would be easy... 
> However, the need for macros and behaviours would be all new (to
> standardised HTML), so although it might be a good starting point, I
> somehow doubt that it's the end point?  I suspect you're still going
> to have some battles to win before any new standard emerges.


<object .../>
<link .../>
<script .../>

handle anything not explicitly definied?

I don't get the push for ODF. I don't get why XHTML isn't all you need 
for a common document format. Transforming configuration and content to 
XHTML makes much more sense to me. Keeping styling info in a separate 
and app/site wide file makes much more sense to me.


> <snip/>
> --
> Peter Hunsberger


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS