Re: word processor document format: what parts?

["J. Patrick Narkinsky" <patrick narkinsky ml org>]

On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Olof Oberg wrote:

> Also I think we are talking too much about DTDs and specific style 
> languages. I think we have agreed that the native file format should 
> be an application of XML. 

Careful point here: what I (and most of those who are talking about
something more than a word clone) are proposing is _not_ that the file
format be an _application_ of XML.  That much is simple and obvious.

Instead, we are suggesting that we use the existing work done in XML,
XSL/DSSL/CSS, and possibly DOM as the underlying framework for a word
processor.

Hence, the system would not support a single application of XML, but many
different applications of XML which could be defined on an arbitrary
basis -- i.e. multiple DTD's as opposed to one DTD's.  

The one DTD approach (used, for example, in gnumeric) is fine -- if all
you want is a word processor.  The thing is that a one-DTD word processor
is liable to end up being 75% of the effort of a multi-DTD capable word
processor.  Without the expandability and extended capabilities. 

Patrick

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If we're to have any luck stanching the vain drain, we just have to 
let nerds be nerds...  Owen Edwards, Forbes Magazine
----------------------------------------------------------------------