But Ooo/LO does use structure markup. All .odt/.ods documents are XML files.
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Wolfgang Keller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Everything that you get from LaTeX: structure markup instead of > > > spaghetti formatting, parameterized formatting, etc... > > > > > > Instead of clicking through dozens of dialogboxes for each and every > > > line of text, slide title, list item, figure, etc. to get > > > everything the way you want it, you just change a few parameters > > > once for the whole document and that's it. > > > > LibO/OOo already provides this. As did MS Word 5.x for DOS around > > 1994. > > MS Word 5.0 for DOS was published in 1989. As the first document > processing software in history that couldn't print. Because MS was > unable/too lazy to supply printer drivers in time for the release. > > > It's called "styles". Which incidentally don't provide only > > formatting information, but also tell the word processor where that > > particular paragraph (or title) sites in the document hierarchycal > > structure. > > The point with MS Word, as (unfortunately) with LO Writer is, that, > unlike e.g. Wordperfect or FrameMaker their document model is thoroughly > unstructured ("spaghetti"), and the way "styles" are implemented they do > not allow to "emulate" "structure markup" convincingly. > > As soon as you try to author significantly complex documents with it you > will notice this. At least if you've ever done similar work with > document processing software that does allow to use "structure markup". > > I've used over a dozen different document processing applications over > the past >20 years, and from day one I have always used "structure > markup" without even knowing about the expression since for me it was > just the natural way to work with documents, but I've never used a > document processing software that made "structure markup" as thoroughly > impossible as MS Word or LO/OO. > > > > I just cited LaTeX as one example for structure markup. Other > > > examples are Wordperfect or Framemaker. My point is that LO should > > > not keep the MS Office-style "spaghetti" content models that were > > > already outdated in the 80s and pile up features on top, but > > > instead LO should focus on providing a functional concept that > > > allows users to work with documents in a more structured and thus > > > more efficient way. MS Office is by far the worst "example" in the > > > market. And, as such, the example *not* to follow. > > > > Are you complaining that OpenDocument format (which not long ago > > became an ISO standard) uses a "spaghetti content model" ? > > Unfortunately, LO/OO is just a 1:1 clone of MS Office. And yes, the MS > "document model" is plain spaghetti, as is LO/OO's. It's a pity, but > that's the way it is and that's why currently I don't use LO Writer for > anything else than for converting .doc files to .pdf. > > The problem with Calc is the same, btw: Instead of "cloning" a good, > well designed example (i.e. Lotus Improv), it is just a 1:1 clone of the > worst spreadhseet available, i.e. "Excel" (what an orwellish branding). > > Sincerely, > > Wolfgang > > > -- > For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected] > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > > -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
