Geoff Deering wrote: >> <gem> >> <commonName>ametrine</commonName> >> <composition>silicon dioxide</composition> >> <MOH>7</MOH> >> </gem> >> >> What does the above granular data have to do with ODF? :-) > > And what does it have to do with DocBook as you suggested;
uh, *nothing* -- DocBook was just an *example* of a granular schema for capturing information about a *specific* knowledge domain -- publications. DocBook doesn't apply to gems, John Deere tractors, or quite a few other real-world knowledge domains for which data can be kept in a CMS. :-) > I agree with you, that if you want to express your granular content with > this definition, you have to write your own schema. In certain > situations this could be the option to adopt, but in many large > organisations, where there are many departments, many complex documents > for both intranet and internet publication, ODF and similar would > provide ... Well, let's agree to disagree -- you're document-focused, and I'm data-focused. I don't consider "documents" as input to a CMS, nor something stored in a CMS -- data stored in the CMS can be *output* as a document of some sort. But user-created documents, in my own experience, *never* contain any content semantics, nor do I see a way for that to happen. -- Hassan Schroeder ----------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. ********************************************************* The CMS discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *********************************************************
