Re: [docbook-apps] Docbook XML to Word(ML)?

[Steve Ball <Steve.Ball@explain.com.au>]

Hi Dave,

The general technique is not specific to WordML (on the front-end),  
nor is it specific to DocBook (on the back-end).  They are simply  
useful targets since they are so popular.  On the front-end, I now  
have the system working with Apple's Pages word-processor and would  
like to look at supporting OOo at some stage.  On the back-end, some  
of the clients I work for use this technique for their own  
proprietary XML formats.

Bob and I balked at supporting every possible combination of DocBook  
elements, but, as you said, there appears to be a useful subset.   
Perhaps with further experience and some clever thought we will be  
able to work out some better methods for achieving combinations.

Regarding OOo vs WordML, WordML does have a simple subset (sections/ 
paragraphs/text-runs), but it is rather terse and complicated by alot  
of cruft.  Once you get past that it's not too bad (having said that,  
it's not how *I* would have designed a markup language... ;-)

Cheers,
Steve Ball

On 18/08/2005, at 3:20 AM, Dave Pawson wrote:

> Looking at the article Steve, I'm very interested.
> I made a start on docbook to (AN Other) XML, and got lost
> very quickly in the element combinations.
>   I'm coming to the conclusion that there is a subset somewhere
> which is a reasonable combination with a fixed starting point.
>
> Similar topic, I'm looking at OOo to XML (not docbook), and finding
> that the element list produced is relatively simple, don't know
> if that's your opinion using Word XML?
>
> XML has so much potential compared to Word styles,
> it's a natural for subsetting.
>
> regards DaveP
>
>>
>>
>
>
>