[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 13:11 -0500, Robert Koberg wrote:
> Uche Ogbuji wrote:
>
> > I made the *separate* point of what
> > excessive XHTML advocacy boils down to, and I clearly was not expecting
> > to author my custom XML in an office format.
> >
> > I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I repeat:
> >
> > """
> > Umm. No. I don't want to tunnel my markup within OOXML any more than I
> > want to tunnel it within XHTML.
>
> Right and I agree with you for those that want and have the ability to
> agree on and/or understand what that is (and posted the agreement a few
> messages ago).
No. The your message shows that I still have to reiterate these points
yet further.
> That is why I was surprised by your vehement support for
> Office formats over XHTML. They both use generic identifiers, right?
Uh, all XML uses generic identifiers. You cannot use XML without using
GIs. I'm using the technical term "generic identifier", in case that's
for some reason unclear.
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?
> Whats more:
> - I don't get how the office document distribution method is better than
> HTML over the web. I don't know about you but my Word or Write document
> does not open in my browser or filesystem so I have download and
> re-download, if lucky enough to be notified in some way, otherwise I
> will just open my most current.
How did we get on the topic of "distribution methods"? I think your
last sentence, to the extent I follow it, illustrates why this is
completely off point.
> - I don't get how/why a format that bundles styles with the document can
> be better than one that keeps them separate across documents in an
> organization.
I think we're still off point, but if you're saying that you think
documents should change appearance automatically whenever their
templates change, I think you're wrong with respect to most business's
desired workflow, and it's a very good illustration of why office docs
are different from Web docs.
Look, if your business need is a better fit for Web docs, then use them
(and thus XHTML). That's not what I'm talking about.
> But, you are saying you want to use whatever you want (I agree). How do
> you communicate that information to a broader base that does not know,
> care or understand your custom markup?
The domain is part of my markup choice. How do you communicate any
information within a domain?
> Should there be custom
> visualization tools for different markup to convey the precise meaning
> (assuming that such things can be made)?
Why should there be?
> What is the best way to get
> those tools?
I don't know. I'm not looking for them.
> If that is too much too ask, is there a format that is much
> easier to transform to, that can be used to convey the info in a good
> enough way and able to viewed in readily available tools?
Hmmm?
I think I'm done elaborating these point. If we're still not
understanding each other, then we'll just not understand each other.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://fourthought.com
http://copia.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
|
