[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 12:12:12PM -0400, Patrick Lam wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Including external content *inside* a file is brain dead. *SPECIALLY*
> > > in an open format, as xml is.
> > > just load everything from a directory (like: filename-data/)
> > Church secretaries can't send directories in their email.
>
> Church secretaries don't use email.
Actually, I've got the impression that church secretaries *only* use
email.
:-)
BTW, I don't want to store my document in a directory, but in a file.
> This argument (for anything that is dump on the developer side) is getting tiresome.
>Yes, some users are stupid. Should we do stupid things? No. That is the Microsoft
>way, that is the way of stupidification.
Actually, we should do intuitive things. Saving a doc as 10 files in a
directory is not intuitive. What will see the users when look for his
"document"? a directory. If somebody figures out that actually, this
directory represents his document, what does he will see when he
double-click in this "document"?
Sorry, but storing a doc as a directory will puzzle everybody.
Church secretaries, hackers, newbees, etc.
> I don't believe users are stupid.
me neither.
> A church secretary that used email, probably has it on a modem, and sending a more
>than a few k's file is too much of a pain to do. So she'll print it, and send it by
>snailmail.
>
> The directory could probably even be a zip file in the style of .war (for those that
>are familiar with servlets).
>
> This could probably mean a change of the file format in such a way:
> a ZIP of a dir containing the xml doc and the files embedded.
now, that's another idea. Kword does something like that (it uses tar
instead of zip, but that's the only difference).
Cheers,
--
Joaquín Cuenca Abela
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
