[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I worry less about the behaviors I haven't learned and more
about the ones I can't explain. Documentation varies widely.
Given a mashup of applications from different servers and
sources, simplicity and well-documented OR STANDARD features
are the sine qua non of applications in composite.
Even if they are word processors. Need new features? Buy
new plugins. This works so well in the music application
market (see ProTools) no one there thinks they should have
to spend $1000 just to pull clicks and pops out of old recordings.
I don't think anyone intends to pry XML out of the developer's hands.
Just consider markets where the end users see a federated page of
slightly to definitely incompatible application behaviors. Data is
the least of our problems regards interoperability and the only
one that XML has a partial solution for.
len
From: Dave Pawson [mailto:davep@dpawson.co.uk]
Combining two of Lens points
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 13:36 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Given a market of server-side components,
>
> It is evident that the market for the highly complex
> and costly word processing tools is shrinking.
Then add that to the fact that 80% of office (Writer |Word) users
only ever use 20% of the functionality,
The provision of a server based office tool that users can't mess with
(easy on support costs) starts to look inviting?
That way even if it is WYSIWYG, the organisation can enforce styles
such
generating regular, usable XML from styled content is easy, never mind
viable.
|
