Re: [ebxml-msg] Docbook sample based on v2.0

[Matthew MacKenzie <matt@xmlglobal.com>]

Martin,

LOL! And why do people still read now that we have television?  People 
who work in the publishing business know that things like MS Word are 
not well suited for concurrent work on a structured document.  People 
from this TC who were involved in the last ebMS spec editing also seem 
to remember a good amount of pain using MS Word.

MS Word and equivalent are for secretaries to type out letters.  
Docbook, and friends, are for real documents.  There are WYSIWYG tools 
out there that will output Docbook (Adobe Framemaker, Softquad XMetal 
(I think), and AbiWord).

Besides, this is work being done under the umbrella of the Organization 
for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards.  I think it is 
a tad hypocritical for us to be using proprietary formats for our core 
editing given our parent organization's charter.


-Matt


On Wednesday, November 20, 2002, at 03:52  PM, Martin Chapman wrote:

> Any why would anyone in thier right minds go back 15-20 years to pre
> WYSIWYG technology :-)
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Matthew MacKenzie [mailto:matt@xmlglobal.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:18 PM
>> To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [ebxml-msg] Docbook sample based on v2.0
>>
>>
>> I've produced a snippet
>>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>