Re: word processor document format: what parts?

[Olof Oberg <mill pedgr571 sn umu se>]

"J. Patrick Narkinsky" <patrick@narkinsky.ml.org> wrote:
> 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.
You don't want to use XML as a basis for the native file format?

> 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.
What will you use XML for if not for the file format?

> 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.  
[snip]
(Here you are saying we should use XML?)
This is irrelevant. We could just as well have a more versatile 
DTD instead of several different ones. Maybe several are better, 
but right now that is just implementation details we shouldn't 
care about.

The same can be said about discussions about how style sheets should 
be tied to the document structure. Since I only know CSS extensively 
I can't comment on DSSSL or XSL, but CSS provides several ways to do 
it. The same can be applied to a word processor or maybe use a DSSSL/XSL 
way. Again it is more of a implementation detail.

 /mill