[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
So this point boils down to denying XHTML is
a word processing format. Some disagree.
Further, they make their case with published
examples. Uglyness in markup is in the eye of
the beholder. Formatted results speak for
themselves.
I think Uche may be going a bit further and
saying that a common core for word processing
isn't valuable in his shop. I take his word
for that if that is what he intends. The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and other states
and nations following their lead assert that
at scale, costs and sovereignty rights (open
access, open markets as determined by sovereign
states) this is not true for their procurement.
So the issue is squarely back to what could be
in such a common core or if it is better to
simply select one of the available options.
So far:
o For some, XHTML + CSS + n are sufficient, are
standard, and are cost efffective. This is a
viable option.
o For some, XHTML + CSS + n don't do enough or
don't have sufficient support to make the task
cost effective for some jobs. This is possibly
so but the case has not been made.
o The choice of OpenDoc vs MS OfficeXML comes
down to procurement policy goals and costs for
the Commonwealth. Others following this story
will want to separate the politics of procurement
provenance (aka, who gets to call the shots) from
the issue of right tool for right job. They will
want to follow this debate and the results.
Given a market of server-side components, high level
building tools, and just in time delivery with the
web as the dominant distribution medium, it is too
early to pick the winner even if one winner is possible.
Note that this is a separate issue from goal-directed
policies for procurement.
It is evident that the market for the highly complex
and costly word processing tools is shrinking. It is
probably in the best interests of all of the vendors
providing core components in a loss leader sales situation
to pursue a common core for mutual self-interest.
Otherwise, Google just wipes up the floor with you.
len
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]
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?
|
