Re: word processor document format: what parts?

[Olof Oberg <mill pedgr571 sn umu se>]

"J. Patrick Narkinsky" <patrick@narkinsky.ml.org> wrote:
> True...  However, one of the issues at hand is that many (most?) people
> who will be using a word processor are used to doing quick and dirty
> formatting using typographic tags (i.e. <bold></bold>).  One of my big
> points is that this structure can be mapped into a full featured XML
> editor using an appropriate DTD and appropriate style sheet.
They use it in such way because they are allowed to and haven't been taught 
a better way of doing things. Can and should be done in a different and 
better way imo.

> So, while I myself would probably use <emphasis></emphasis>, we do talk a
> lot about that particular DTD which will allow 'eye-candy' layout because
> it is, almost with a doubt, the one that will see the most use initially.
People are allowed to use <font>, <frame> and whatever Netscape came up 
with too. Now we are wasting (already wasted 3-4 years) time to get people 
to use style sheets instead.

Don't make the same mistake.

I will probably not put much time into writing this word processor (will 
try to make a better http_config module ;-)), but for those of you wanting 
to write a Word clone I would like to ask - why? I can see one reason in 
wanting to get Win* users to GNOME, but is that really the only goal? If 
this was a goal of GNOME wouldn't Baboon have a different name and GUI 
policy being enforced too? I would like GNOME to be something better and 
I can't see the benefits of a style oriented word processor over what I 
have proposed.

Well since I will not be an active developer I will shut up now. Just wish 
I would be able to use something better in the future.

 /mill