Re: word processor document format: what parts?

[Jean-Baptiste <jbnivoit ix netcom com>]

Timothy Ritchey wrote:
> 
> > > 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 don't think this is really realistic, because most documents created
with word processors barely have a structure: people only care about the
look, and most of the time, they don't think of applying a structure to
their
document and *then* change the style of the various elements of the 
structure. Now if everyone could use this, it would be wonderful.

> I think that those of us pushing XML/XSL tangents have a specific "world
> view" on how documents should be.
SGML is probably too complex to implement, whereas XML allows less
flexibility
in tagging (minimization rules in SGML are too complex), but that is of
no
importance to the users since that would be an internal format that they
would never have to edit by hand.

And with XML, if the editing program (the word processor) proposes
several
simple templates (that would be no more than XML DTD and their
associated XSL
stylesheet definitions!), that could already be close to word
processing, if not
more advanced than what WORD does...

So XML is the right thing to do, now who's going to write the DTD and
stylesheets
for the templates? ;-)

		jb.