RTF or WordML for Office solutions?
I thank Gabe for posting this question:
If you are not converting, why not just generate an RTF file?
Let me put it another way: which is better, RTF or XML? I think it's pretty clear that XML is the winner, and it has the most mind-share. By using XML, the same document created on the server could be consumed by a wider variety of consumers (not just word processers or document-centric programs). The same auto-generated document could be transformed to different XML and easily turned into a Web page or to an insert into another database. Why not take the XML document (completely marked up in WordProcessingML) and transform it into a data for a Web service? The point is that XML is so much adaptable and flexible than RTF. We have the RTF spec on the MSDN, and it does get a fair amount of page views each year. Nevertheless, the innovation is going on with XML.
Also, another reader wondered any of this had to do with server-side solutions when WordML can be produced using notepad. It's a fair question, also. Let me put it this way: we have seen for several years how many companies have tried to create Web-based apps that generate documents on the server. It's a simple fact that many need and want to do it. However, using Word on the server is unsupported and quite unwise. Word's XML support makes this possible. Sure, you can generate documents in notepad, but this is mostly a contrived scenario. The vast number of developers do not want this. They want to create the documents as part of a larger, more complex process.
Rock Thought for the day: I jammed at my house yesterday with a friend from church. We are just hacks, but we had a great time. We did some power-chord progressions, and I solo'd on the top of it. My son, Andrew, did the drumming. The kid is a natural.
I like it heavy most of the time. But, distortion should not be an excuse to be sloppy as is so often the case with guitarists. Effects are a dangerous crutch. Speed is a result of accuracy. I remind myself of this when I play lazily.
Rock on.
Comments
Anonymous
October 26, 2004
Scott, thanks for the thoughts on the posts! Being an MS developer, I really enjoy reading the blogs. That said, we'll have to agree to disagree on the WordML thing...
<rant>
Depends on your goal. I have to agree, that if all things were equal, an XML format would be the way to go. All things, however, are not equal. If your goal is for the user to be able to open the file, than RTF is still your best bet (or PDF). As of today, I believe only one program can digest that file, Word 2003. (And I believe only the pro version at that!) MS needs to dump the binary format and switch to XML as the default moving forward if they want this format to gain any traction. Even then, it will take years before one can assume a program can digest it. Of course, MS will have to deal with the fact that this will make it easier for anyone to read their format. (Isn't that the goal, though? It's not like it is IMPOSSIBLE for competitors to read a DOC file, it's just difficult. Short of encryption, your not going to succeed on format lock in anyway.)
Now that I'm totaly off topic, I wonder why (like almost all other vendors), MS doesn't support PDF generation in it's products. Hmmmm. You may agree or disagree that it is technicaly the best format, but whether anyone likes it or not, it is THE standard. Well, WMP10 now FINALLY fully supports MP3s, FrontPage 2003 (for the most part) generates good, cross browser HTML code...maybe MS has seen the light.
MS makes some great stuff, if only they had better support for standards (wether or not it is their standard), more people would use and be happy with their products. The temptation for alternatives would diminish rapidly, and some of these Linux zealots would calm down.
</rant>
I also find that HTML is often a good format for documents that simply need to be printed. It's certainly easier to embed images than in RTF or even WordML.Anonymous
October 26, 2004
Hiya,
good to see that you are back, John. Hope you're feeling better.
We are basically at the same point. WordProcessingML or ...? I looked a lot into "...ML" in Word. I must say I agree with you about XML. But: XML is not WordProcessingML! Unfortunately this gets always mixed up and I fear that in your post it is also not very clear. I agree with what you say about XML, I disagree if you want to apply this to WordProcessingML (have you ever looked at the WordProcessingML for a List? Why the heck used MS a flat structure for a Structured Format if XML is a structured language?).
We currently use VB6 and Word Automation using Bookmarks. We are doing the next step thingy into .Net and (hopefully) Word 2003. Our Vision was: use XML Data, join it with a XSLT and voila you get a Word Document. Unfortunately its not that easy. We can't expect the user to create XSLT. Using XSLT we are limited to HTML Formatting etc.
For me the ideal world would look like this:
The user creates Word Docs, drag and drops XML elements into his text, sourrounds paragraphs with XML Nodes to switch them on/off, saves the whole lot into a Repository as a Stylesheet (as he/she currently does using a Word Template) and our Application uses this Stylesheet with XML Data to poduce a Word Doc.
I must admit RTF came to my mind. We use it in some parts of our organisation and it works fine.
I got the feeling that the WordProcessingML just uses the existing Document Structure and ports it to a XML Style format. Its a bit more readable than RTF but I can't see it very re-usable.
But that's just my opinion.
Cheers
PeterAnonymous
October 26, 2004
John,
thanks for your additional posts.
I do like the WordML stuff and we are exactly working on a solution outlined in your picture.
we have a java app server needing to communicate with end users. On the java appserver we generate WordML docs (no word involved) and let the user modify them using Word and then upload them back to the server for further processing.
to a certain extent this is very nice.
One point with regard to using Word on the server... sometimes for example you want to use the exact feature from Word like merging/diffing and then even from java you need to invoke word on the server to exactly mimic what a user would see if he/she had done it him/herself using word. Sure this can be programmed exactly alike, but why re-invent the wheel?
With regard to WordML / Smartdocuments, in my experience there is something in between using the XML Schema validation that is in Word (I think I commented on this before). There does not seam to be an easy way of linking the schema to the respective document... If you could shed some light on that I would appreciate it.
Keep on Blogging!!!!
MichaelAnonymous
October 28, 2004
Gabe et al,
I agree with some of your thoughts. I agree that PDF has its merits. You can in fact, via document protection and so forth, approximate the experience in Word, but it is not quite the same. On the other hand, I find the Adobe reader klunky and limiting. Also, the extensibility story there is not exactly transparent let's just say.
You can read my thoughts on standards and the difference between XML and WordML on my post for today (October 29).
I also agree that the XML markup for some things in a Word doc can get rather verbose.
In my view, the market for 3rd party tools and utilities to do things with Word and its XML file format is mostly untapped. If I did not work for Microsoft and was putting on my entrepreneurial hat I would focus in that area. Some of the very ideas you have advanced in your feedback could be great ISV opportunities. To me, this is not evidence of a weakness in Word 2003, it is a testament to its value and extensibility.Anonymous
November 17, 2004
The comment has been removedAnonymous
June 08, 2009
PingBack from http://hairgrowthproducts.info/story.php?id=1126Anonymous
June 19, 2009
PingBack from http://debtsolutionsnow.info/story.php?id=3309