Re: XML v. HTML

[Barry Campbell <barry -at- WEBVERANDA -dot- COM>]

At 09:26 AM 7/27/98 -0700, Klopfenstein, Ed (AFS) wrote:

>Read an editorial over the weekend about how Microsoft may switch Word 98
>from formatted RTF into an HTML/ActiveX base. Adobe is taking an opposite
>course and apparently making future versions of FrameMaker more XML
>oriented, with XML being much more versatile than HTML for scripting both
>online and print documents.
>
>This could have a serious impact for many technical writers, if it's
>actually true. Has anyone heard similar rumblings? If so, any plans about
>how to deal with this change?

Ed,

I would never presume to speak for Microsoft, but everything I've read
lately suggests that they are firmly committed to supporting XML as a
native file format in "Office 2000."  Word 98 already exists on the
Macintosh, by the way, and to the best of my knowledge uses the same
file format as Word 97 on the PC.  Failing to support XML in this
environment would be sheer lunacy.

XML seems much more likely to be a unifying standard than a source
of conflict.  Since XML is a metalanguage (a language designed to
define other languages) it is nearly impossible to define proprietary
extensions that other browsers or platforms cannot read--unlike HTML,
which became technically Balkanized early in the browser wars and
still has not recovered.

For information on Microsoft's XML development plans, check out


http://www.microsoft.com/xml/default.asp

For an article offering an early spin on how Office 2000 and
FrontPage 2000 may interact, see


http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?980720.wifrontpage.htm


--
Barry Campbell         | Why people tear the seams of anyone's dreams
barry -at- webveranda -dot- com   | is over my head... (Duke Ellington/Bob Russell,
40.77 N, 73.97 W       | "Do Nothin' Till You Hear From Me")