cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joerg Heinicke <joerg.heini...@gmx.de>
Subject Re: [OT] - About MS published schemas
Date Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:50:12 GMT
On 25.11.2003 17:20, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

>>> Hi:
>>> I found this interesting article about the recent MS published schemas.
>>> And I like to share it with the rest of the community:
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34045.html
>>
>>
>> What a frustrating point of view! But I fear to much will be true:
>>
>> ... there's plenty of room in the specification for binary data or 
>> what Microsoft calls "arbitary schema". People forget that the X in 
>> XML is for extensible.
>>
>> As Mike Champion asked here, "What is the point of storing data in XML
>> if the schema is so hideous and proprietary than no one can use it
>> without proprietary API support? What advantages does WordML have over
>> the HTML-like stuff that current versions of Word generate on request?
>> At least you can tidy.exe the HTML-like stuff into standard XML, but
>> what can you do with WordML except load it into Word...unless of course
>> you are an XSLT uber-geek?"
> 
> 
> Look at this from this angle: the POI project is spending thousands of 
> man-hours to figure out the binary formats that office uses just to get 
> out with some easily parsable data. That data will have to be marked-up 
> in some ways anyway and I wouldn't want POI to do, say, semantic schema 
> transformation to docbook, for example.
> 
> so, at the end, if you buy a license for 2003, you are, in fact, buying 
> what POI is trying to do anyway.
> 
> If you have equations or weird OLE stuff in your document, would you 
> really be able to do anything with it even if it wasn't binary stuff? we 
> wouldn't have support for mathml anyway.
> 
> I think that Word2003 is going to be a big issue for roundtripping small 
> documents in a CMS: if Word2003 allows for "read only" styles, the issue 
> of real-life semantic markup for document fragments is almost solved.
> 
> So, let's move on.

Sorry, but what exactly do you want to tell me with these sentences. I 
don't get your point.

Joerg


Mime
View raw message