Webdeveloper article on MS-XML in Office 2000....

[Didier PH Martin]

Hi Jason,

I think that this was obvious since the beginning. XML is like SGML it let
you create your _own_ language. So nothing refrain Corel to create its own
language, Microsoft to do so, etc...

HTML is different, it is an application or domain specific language. Even
imperfect, it is more standard because the vocabulary is already created and
defined. But XHTML opens some doors....

I could say however that even if Microsoft is proprietary, even if Coral XML
could also be proprietary, it is improvement on what we got. Why? Now I can
use a style or transformation language to convert, manipulate, display these
documents. So, I can use DSSSL, XSL, omnimark, etc.. languages to manipulate
the HTML/XML output into something else. This is, in my own view an opinion,
an improvement from what we got.

I never expected Microsoft to use a XML standard (is there any, anyway?) for
its office documents. I am a too old monkey to believe in Santa Claus :-)))
But, now, office document could be manipulated with style and transformation
languages and this is good news to me because, we can now transform office
documents into any desired document architecture and still benefit from the
user friendly interface Office products have (and so do Corel products). I
know by experience that it is hard to convince end users to use other tools
than the ones they like. And they like the way word processors work.

Guys, why don't we take this opportunity to show WebReview people that style
and transformation language like DSSSL, PERL_XML, XSL could be used to
obtain what we want. This would be more constructive than playing the
national sport: Microsoft bashing, sit, and snip a beer and do nothing. Come
on, this is opportunity in fact, we can show that going from previous format
to HTML/XML is a new opportunity for text manipulation and transformation.
But I know, this means, stop putting faults on someone else shoulder, stop
drinking beer until the job is finished and finally _do_ something.

A simple sentence:

_just_ _do_ _it_!

Anyway, thanks for the info, even if this info do not help us in any way.
Except give more fuel to the government attorney. Don't worry, Microsoft
cannot do anymore what they want now. But we have to use more our brains
too. And I know criticism is easier than _doing_ things. I am playing a bit
now to create dsssl scripts that transform a Word output document into a
different document architecture. In the process, I learned a lot, especially
that now, it is a lot more easier than when the format was word proprietary
format. If Corel and Lotus do the same, it will be easier to convert a
document created from one editor to an other.

(PS: this is not intended to you Jason, you just awoken a sleeping monster).


Regards
Didier PH Martin
mailto:martind at netfolder.com
http://www.netfolder.com

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-xml-dev at ic.ac.uk [mailto:owner-xml-dev at ic.ac.uk]On Behalf Of
Buss, Jason A
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 8:24 AM
To: 'xml-dev at ic.ac.uk'
Subject: Webdeveloper article on MS-XML in Office 2000....


Has anyone read the latest article on XML implementation in Office 2000?

http://webreview.com/wr/pub/1999/04/02/edge/index.html?wwwrrr_19990402.txt

<SOAPBOX stance='atop'>

What does the STANDARDIZATION of XML have to do with enforcing a software
standard?  If Lotus and Corel and all these other office suite vendors adopt
XML as the standard reads, and Microsoft maims XML implementation so that an
XML doc saved in Office 2000 can't be read by other vendors' applications,
does it not become clear who is in the wrong here?  No one (that I can think
of) WANTS Microsoft to implement their own 'flavor' of XML.  The whole point
of XML (I gathered) was so that anyone's browser (or application) could open
and read ranting.xml without fear of not having the "right" software to read
the document.  I have Office (I have no choice, since it's the "standard")
but when I have to share something, If I can't fit it in Outlook (another
"standard") then I attach a .txt file.  I don't have to worry about anyone's
application not supporting that.  If it's too big, or needs graphics, then I
post it on the web or intranet, in HTML 3.2 (no DHTML or stinkin' BLINK
tags) and forget about it, cuz I know noone should have trouble reading it.
Just like the guy in this article.  Why not apply the same logic to his
documents that he does to his webpages?  Then he doesn't have to chastise
anyone (like anyone using Linux) about not using Word.  Ok, I feel a bit
better now....

</SOAPBOX>

Jason A. Buss
Single Engine Technical Publications
Cessna Aircraft Co.
jabuss at cessna.textron.com
"I don't dislike Microsoft products...  I still use Flight Simulator
religiously..."


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN
981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following
message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)