[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC