Re: Document Authoring Tool Woes

[George_Robert_Blakley_III@tivoli.com]

Anders et. al.

Again, the interim agreement was pictures in .jpeg or .ppt.  My intention
is to put all final figures into the text in a single
format, for which I like .jpeg a bit better than .gif.  The reason I'd like
.ppt files is that I can turn them into a graphics format
for the final document, but I can also modify them if changes are required
based on the group's comments.

--bob

Bob Blakley
Chief Scientist, Security
Tivoli Systems, Inc.


Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@telia.com> on 01/21/2001 02:55:58 PM

To:   Ken Yagen <kyagen@crosslogix.com>, S2ML
      <security-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:
Subject:  Re: Document Authoring Tool Woes



RE: Document Authoring Tool WoesKen,
I could have gotten it wrong.  Just as a "prestudy" I tried the
RTF-generator on Word 97 on one of
my documents.  It went up from 290K to a whopping 12.5M!  Is that's why
they call it "Rich" text? :-)
BTW, what does pictures in PowerPoint mean?  OLE-linked PPT objects in
documents,
or separately maintained pictures that you do screen-dumps on?

/Anders

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Yagen
To: S2ML
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 18:31
Subject: RE: Document Authoring Tool Woes


I thought the decision was to use RTF and/or HTML for editing and
Powerpoint/JPEG for Graphics
Ken Yagen
Director, Software Development
CrossLogix, Inc.
http://www.crosslogix.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:anders.rundgren@telia.com]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 11:32 PM
To: S2ML
Subject: Document Authoring Tool Woes


Hi All,
In the use-case group the decision is to use XML as authoring language.
To be honest: I have no idea what that means as XML (unlike HTML) does
AFAIK
not directly support  text formatting.  XML supports anything (or nothing)!
But you must use a
particular DTD/Schema associated interpreter for each task.  My XMLSpy 3.5
does BTW not
look like a great word-processor...
The common objection (inferiority) to use MS-Word that most of us know and
have on our
desktops, is IMO a bit premature until UN, OASIS, IETF or whatever has
defined this
DTD/Schema that gives us truly interoperable word-processing :-)
Since SUN's Star Office also supports the native Word format I suggest that
we standardize
on some dialect (Word 97 preferably).  Regarding the formatting issues I
think the best
is that the authors "integrate" text and pictures to get a uniform look.
Not a trivial task,
I know!
Or someone creates a style-sheet + instructions so that the task becomes
more manageable.
Publishing can be in both DOC and PDF which seems very common.
Using Word, pictures can be in any format although I personally prefer
hi-resolution
GIF or JPG as they are compatible with any word-processor or type-setting
system.
An alternative to Word is HTML, which is awkward a looks ugly when printed,
but it feels anyway as a better choice than XML when used as source
language.
As word-processing truly is "religion" [I just confessed mine :-)], this is
a thing you probably
have to vote on to not get stuck in endless discussions.  We may end up
with ASCII!
Anders Rundgren
CTO X-OBI
+46 70 - 627 74 37