Re: word processor document format: what parts?

[Timothy Ritchey <tritchey vne com>]

> > 2) Bob is a word clone.  It is a wordprocessor.
> >       <MUCHO SNIPO>
> However, I tend to think that the
> distinction between an SGML editor and a WP is a false dichotomy.
> My proposal would be to implement it that way: structure for full SGML
> editing -- and then allow for a limited mode that only understands
> typical WP stuff.

To say something is a "WORD" replacement is only commenting on the
interface. If someone doesn't know (or care!) if the underlying
structure is SGML, then that should work too. Fankly, I would LOVE a WP
that I could pound out a quick letter, WYSIWYG fasion, print it out, and
forget about - all in SGML. I don't see why we have to have one and not
the other. My goal would be to create SGML for the masses as it where. I
think that those of us pushing XML/XSL tangents have a specific "world
view" on how documents should be. 

XML DOES mean more work, and this is something I am not afraid to point
out - but it also means that the documents we build with this tool will
be more useful. At the same time, there are already many tools available
from which we can gain implementation features. SGML was around long
before Word as far as I know - and is now coming back as XML - there is
a reason. Format based documents are worthless except for printing and
displaying - eye candy.

I think I am worried that we end up with a product that is no better/no
worse than word. If it is just a replacement, I will stick with emacs,
which I like much better.