• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Subject: RE: Common Word Processing Format
• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:54:46 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0BB1FC48@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE0BB1FC48@h...>
• Reply-to: davep@d...

Combining two of Lens points
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 13:36 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Given a market of server-side components,

> 
> It is evident that the market for the highly complex 
> and costly word processing tools is shrinking. 

Then add that to the fact that 80% of office (Writer |Word) users
only ever use 20% of the functionality,

The provision of a server based office tool that users can't mess with
(easy on support costs) starts to look inviting?

That way even if it is WYSIWYG, the organisation can enforce styles
such 
generating regular, usable XML from styled content is easy, never mind
viable.


-- 
Regards, 

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Common Word Processing Format
    • From: James Fuller <jim.fuller@r...>
  • RE: Common Word Processing Format
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>
  • Re: Common Word Processing Format
    • From: Robert Koberg <rob@k...>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: <monty>Re: Preserving whitespace between nodes - XSLT</monty>
• Next by Date: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Previous by thread: RE: Common Word Processing Format
• Next by thread: Re: Common Word Processing Format
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread