> >From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
 > >To: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>
 > >CC: xml-dev@l...
 > >Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Common Word Processing Format
 > >Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:15:22 -0700
 >
 >
 > >Of an office format is too complex for your need, then of course I
 > >wouldn't advocate it.  My point is that reducing all use cases to XHTML
 > >is just as bad.
 >
 >
At least as I understand Len's point (from the XML 2005 townhall) the
problem is that real people have a need for real document format standards
that are really supported and  really open TODAY.  What MS will do in Office
12 (or what can be done in Office 11 with some user training) , and what
could be done in ODF once the little detail of deployment and conversion and
training is out of the way, is not very helpful to people with the problem
now.  (X)HTML is good enough for a *lot* of these use cases, is univerally
supported, and both a de facto and formal standard.  So what's wrong with
it?

1) It's easy for easy things but very hard for hard things.
2) It is a classic "worse is better" solution which makes geeks gag.
3) It doesn't strike a blow against the Empire.

OK, but:

1) Most of the stuff that really has to be authored and read by anyone,
anytime fits within HTML, as shown by its dominance on the Web.
2) Call it "disruptive innovation" and the suits will be happy, and they
make the decisions.
3)   ODF might scratch the black armor a bit, not cut off
Darth's breathing apparatus, even *if* it proliferates rapidly.

I (and my little corner of the Empire) would be happy if this scenario
doen't play out and  custom schemas and even free-form XML markup
proliferate.  Diversity and customization of markup just creates more demand
for the stuff that most of us build or explain. But I'm not going to hold my
breath.

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/