Subject: Re: Questions about our XML grammar
From: Dom Lachowicz (cinamod@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Jan 10 2001 - 10:10:20 CST
>Well, OK, but:
>
>1. Props is non-intuitive, especially for our favorite target client.
>(You know, the church secretary.) (And, for me.)
Umm... well, it really doesn't matter at all what we call it. The church
secretary should *never* be hand-editing the document or using something
like XSLT to do transformations. As for developers, well, I don't see what
the big deal is.
>2. I don't think CSS invented "styles" -- I don't think Word did either,
>but I think they've been using "styles" since Word 3 (1983?), or
>earlier.
Following precedent. This is a better argument. If we're going to change, we
need to change it _now_.
FYI, Word styles are like our styles, not our "props" attributes. i.e. a
style is a set of predefined attributes inherited by any element. MSWord
uses PAP and CHP binary structures (actually, groups of diffs to these
structures - GRPPLs of PAPXs and CHPXs) to store what we currently call
"props".
Dom
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Jan 10 2001 - 10:10:23 CST