I agree with the points about OpenXML's syntax and ODF's, I've had to work with both, as well as writing two MS Word to XML converters in earlier projects (straight data extraction), OpenXML is awful. It's not the worst XML format I've seen, but it's probably in the top ten.
I'm also in agreement with the point about Schema languages, but that is a lost case in this office. :( I've basically resigned myself to XML Schema and Schematron to ease the pain. Cheers, Bryan Rasmussen -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Daniel Carrera [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. februar 2006 15:09 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: SV: [xml-dev] OpenXML and Open Document Format for standardization purposes comparison Bryan Rasmussen wrote: > My starting point for the focus of standardization would be something like: > > ODF supports a broader base of standards than OpenXML, this could reduce > costs for businesses, developers etc. because various objects placed > into a document will be described in standardized formats the knowledge > of which will be cross-platform. Examples would be - svg, xforms, xsl-fo > (of these formats though only SVG can be considered as being a > successful standard as of yet.) The OpenDocument Fellowship has an introductory technical article giving some reasons why OpenDocument is much easier to develop for. http://opendocumentfellowship.org/Articles/FormatODFVsMSXML The format is just more human-readable. The tags make sense, the content model makes sense in the context of a document. Everything about the format is clearly designed with the implementor in mind. Contrast this with MS XML which looks like a XML serialization of internal data structures. Compare, MS XML: <w:p> <w:r> <w:t>This is a </w:t> </w:r> <w:r> <w:rPr> <w:b /> </w:rPr> <w:t>very basic</w:t> </w:r> <w:r> <w:t> document.</w:t> </w:r> </w:p> With OpenDocument: <text:p text:style-name="Standard"> This is a <text:span text:style-name="bold">very basic </text:span> document. </text:p> > OpenXML has support for XML Schema, including definition of its > structure via XML Schema. In organizations where a lot of investment has > been made in XML Schemas it can be that OpenXML can be more easily > integrated with data (although that will depend a lot on how such > integration is handled at the functionality level of the application, > and is at this point a 'maybe' only) Back to implementors, XML Schema is very complex and hard to read. OpenDocument uses Relax NG which can be understood by someone reading it for the first time. Relax NG is arguably more powerful, allowing a more thorough validity check. A couple of weeks ago we heard from someone who was trying to implement MS XML, but his files were not opening. Microsoft told him that this was because there were features in MS XML that just aren't represented in the schema. Technically, this is true of any XML format, but it is much less likely with OpenDocument. Cheers, Daniel. -- /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org /\/_/ /\/_/ I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for \/_/ stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels / off of everything and let the problem solve itself? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
