• To: lucas@g...
• Subject: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:50:02 +0000
• Cc: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <43950DCB.1030301@p...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0BB1FC48@h...> <1133607286.3282.15.camel@marge> <43950DCB.1030301@p...>
• Reply-to: davep@d...

On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 18:04 -1000, Lucas Gonze wrote:

> over the years.  There must be something broken in the abstraction.
Great idea when presented.
Enables Bill to give his dad a great 80th birthday present.

> 
> Maybe the problem is that no one company can supply software for every 
> different set of 20% users.  Maybe the problem is that word processing 
> is a bad metaphor.  May it is that there should be many independent 
> pieces of software rather than one huge one.  I don't know.  What I know 
> is that this way isn't working.
It works for Bill?
Agree it doesn't work for the user though. (my definition of 'work')
> 
> What matters about document formats is their part in the wave of 
> developers who will fix the problem, whenever that happens.

Could you expand on that please Lucas?
I don't see where you're going?

To me, if you talk about document formats,
I associate that with longevity.
(Does the state of Mass? Maybe)

-- 
Regards, 

Dave Pawson
XSLT + Docbook FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• References:
  • RE: Common Word Processing Format
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
  • RE: Common Word Processing Format
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>

• Prev by Date: recursive nesting
• Next by Date: [Active Tags] Have the RefleX !
• Previous by thread: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Next by thread: RE: Common Word Processing Format
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread