Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

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

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

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already outdated in the 80s and pile up features on top, but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).



For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.