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). That is why I was surprised by your vehement support for 
  Office formats over XHTML. They both use generic identifiers, right? 
Why text:p is better than xhtml:p I just don't 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.
- 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.

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? Should there be custom 
visualization tools for different markup to convey the precise meaning 
(assuming that such things can be made)? What is the best way to get 
those tools? 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?

-Rob