Re: [docbook-apps] Pros and cons DocBook vs Word2003

[Dave Pawson <dpawson@nildram.co.uk>]

At 14:03 14/11/2003, Jirka Kosek wrote:

>Word 2003 Professional also allow you to create XML documents based on 
>your custom XML schema. However Word can not apply formatting styles to 
>newly added elements, it will format document only on import. So this 
>feature is quite usefull for filling-up forms, but not for structured 
>document editing.

I installed office 03 pro today for an XML evaluation.
As an XML editor its OK. I use our own schema, and it saves' as XML
fine.

I was looking for an editor for non XML users... WYSIWYG but with
XML export. As Jirka says, I can't style the XML to 'look like'
an office/Word document. Its strange. I style it using normal word styles
and I can view it with/without tags, yet I can't associate a style with a tag.
Then when I insert a new tag, it comes up styled as whatever the default 
style is.

My own current practices.
For bitmap images I use Smartdraw.
For line drawings, have a look at the SVG packages if on Windows.
Irfanview does all the conversion I need.
I never did view Word as a good drawing package.
For presentation slides I moved over to HTML a long time ago.
Far more controllable than Powerpoint, nearly always works.
Try the docbook derived slides package.

I can't really say after 1/2 a day, but my gut feel is that
I'm not going to be able to recommend word as an XML editor,
even for admin staff who aren't interested in XML. At least
not if I can't make it show content with some form of style
whilst editing. Its no good exporting, then applying XSLT
just to check if it looks good, which is what most word uses
judge a document by.

I'll report back if I have any more success.

HTH DaveP