Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: MS raised prices so people will now start renting their office products instead

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 <feliphil@gmx.net> 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 already outdated in the 80s and pile up features on top, but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: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
> 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: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
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