[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Ok. First, the interest is not RSS/Atom but HTML/XHTML.
Then possibly all of the embeddable formats. I don't
edit graphics in Word. I import them. Would that be
different for ODF? Probably not. Blogs are interesting
in that the sites I am familiar with have the editor
in the site. Is it good enough (remember question c)
for most word processing apps? No. Probably not even
half. On the other hand, there are existence proofs
for using HTML for high end publishing. Is that the
right level of complexity for the majority of word
processing given, as a poster stated on Scoble's blog,
that it doesn't have 5 to 10% of the features of a
word processing format? (The point is to deliver to
the end user only as much functionality as they need
for a task to keep the complexity low and costs
commensurate.)
As to a structural editor per your description: that's
ok for some. Some really don't want to know much more
than titles, lists, sections, subsections, paras, tables,
and image editing. And if functionality can be loaded
on demand given the access and the credit card #,
;-), that is enough. What one wouldn't want from the procurement
perspective is to be forced to buy from the high end of the
pricelist to get the basic stuff for every desk.
From where I sit, Bray's namespaced thought experiment
makes sense. Always has. Structural editors make
sense. Always have (been doing this a long long time).
If I don't want spreadsheets, I don't want the spreadsheet
editor. I might want a renderer because I can't control
what people send me. I might only want a spreadsheet
editor occasionally.
None of this seems mysterious or provocative. What is
questionable is if the argument that having open formats
guarantees a market. Having an open containerized format
might but as in the example of DoD, when the technology
changes or the environment changes, the market model changes.
So when comparing ODF and Office, one might want to compare
them for the cost of initial installs and just-in-time upgrades.
I sort of doubt the Massachusetts Senate and/or executive
branch think in those terms. The ITheads can. But both should
understand costs. Monocultures not only expose the user to
viral risk and can restrict access to public information, but
they are lousy at cost control.
len
From: Robert Koberg [mailto:rob@koberg.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> If it is as claimed that HTML/XHTML only has 5 to 10% of the features
> of word processing:
>
> 1. What is the world's largest publishing medium (the web) so successful
> using only 5 to 10% of the features of word processing?
I sense a logical fallacy (not really sense it, just have experienced
it). It is not that only 5-10% are used, it is that 5-10% are made
useable by the software that allow publishing to web. Blog entries are
not the be all and end all...
This is why I said that the battle is for useable 'write' programs. The
web doesn't have it yet. I would also say that desktop pub systems
dont't either, but...
When an organization matures in its web publishing there are needs for
more structure (and, of course there is a need for freeform). When
structure is needed it is welcome as it saves the user time and resolves
confusing choices. There is also the need to be able able to change
templates/style and not use drones to do it.
I would not want to see what I think you are proscribing. I want to see
a good WYSIWYG, schema validating editor that can choose between
different content types (FAQ, Callout, Gloosary-Item, whatever) and
allows for a free-for-all content type.
Content pieces should be separate. They should be able to be placed
where needed in whatever presentation.
(Our CMS, http://livestoryboard.com , has that now except I want
something that is more usable for those accustomed to MSWord). Xopus is
the best available currently. I wish there was better and cross
browser/platform.
best,
-Rob
|
