RE: Document Authoring Tool Woes

["Orchard, David" <dorchard@jamcracker.com>]

I suggest that you try talking with Eve about the W3C xml/xmlspec dtd/xslt.
When I was active at co-editing XInclude and XLink, there was a W3C DTD.
Then each WG created it's own stylesheet.  The XLink Ben Trafford and I
copied mostly from the Schema WG.  

Images were created in whatever, then saved as gif.

You also might want to check with other Oasis TC's to see if Oasis has
developed an OASIS Spec DTD/Schema.  If not, you could be in ground-breaking
territory!  Imagine, you could kick-off the standard that other OASIS tc's
use.  

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anders Rundgren [mailto:anders.rundgren@telia.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:56 PM
> To: Ken Yagen; S2ML
> 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 
>