Matthew MacKenzie wrote:
> I think that you should use DocBook. I hear it too is an OASIS spec :-)
>
> Relying on WYSIWYG for complex technical documents scares me a little
> bit, but that is just me.
And not having a modern, state-of-the-art WYSIWYG editor for complex
documents scares the living day lights out of me. This to me is the most
important requirement out of the three I proposed.
> Look at the W3C, what they are doing is working quite well, and they
> use an XML format.
And Open Office uses an XML format. One that is the basis for the Open
Office Format TC and their future standard.
>
>
> -Matt
>
> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
>> Changed subject title to protect the innocent...
>>
>>
>>> Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW I like the idea of having HTML version of specs available
>>>> online. I propose we do this for our specs as well. Any objections?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Duane Nickull wrote:
>>
>>> Docbook?
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually all I was thinking is to save the document as HTML. This is
>> a cheap and mindless act.
>>
>> The current spec source in in Word. It has several problems due to
>> limitations in Word for large documents. Longer term I would like to
>> move away from Word. I was thinking of Open Office which is the basis
>> for the Open Office Format TC:
>>
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=office
>>
>> Important criterea for choice of formats are:
>>
>> -Open format (ideally XML)
>>
>> -WYSIWYG Editors that are useable and reliable
>>
>> -Ideally freely available software
>>
>> Open Office meets each of the above requirements. Software is freely
>> available from:
>>
>> http://www.openoffice.org
>>
>> Also since it can open Word formats migration from Word to Open
>> Office would be relatively painless.
>>
>> What do people (and specialy Sally) think?
>>
>>
>
--
Farrukh
