From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/22741 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Duncan Hothersall Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: DOC/RTF to ConTeXt via XML Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:24:15 +0100 Message-ID: <43391DCF.1010805@capdm.com> References: <20050927100004.7F435127E5@ronja.ntg.nl> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1127816952 5558 80.91.229.2 (27 Sep 2005 10:29:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:29:12 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Tue Sep 27 12:28:55 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EKChV-0001vN-As for gctc-ntg-context-518@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:28:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFCEF127D6; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:28:40 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27186-03; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:28:40 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485B1127D8; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:25:00 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16D2F127D8 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:24:59 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.ntg.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 26988-04 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:24:58 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from liszt-09.ednet.co.uk (liszt-09.ednet.co.uk [212.20.226.21]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D31127D6 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:24:57 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from [192.168.254.41] (unknown [212.20.255.162]) by liszt-09.ednet.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B936225FA0 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:24:57 +0100 (BST) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl In-Reply-To: <20050927100004.7F435127E5@ronja.ntg.nl> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on smtp.ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:22741 Archived-At: Slightly OT, sorry: >>OpenOffice.org does allow you to attach an XSLT stylesheet to an export >>process which therefore allows you to do a (limited) transformation fro= m >>the visual markup which is its native format to a more structured one >=20 > Why =84limited=93? =20 Well, XSLT seems to have been designed, and certainly tends to be implemented, as a tool for simple transformations of small XML chunks. Obviously complex transformations can be constructed from a bunch of simple transformations, but there comes a point when you should really just use a better tool - though these tend to cost serious money (e.g. OmniMark). Also, most XSLT implementations use the DOM model, which is fine for a 50Kb file but will be incredibly resource-hungry if you're processing files of 5Mb. At that point you want a streaming model, and for a streaming model you want a better suited language than XSLT. As I say, horses for courses. For article-length pieces and simple transforms, XSLT might suffice. > Also, don't limit your authors to Word. Offering Word is obviously a > requirement, but if you go the way through OOo, there would be no point > in not offering an OOo template file. If you are using a standard xml > format, such as (a subset of) DocBook or TEI, you probably should accep= t > articles in that format, too. And, of course, ConTeXt. Absolutely; particularly if you can offer authors an incentive or direct benefit from adopting OO.o, such as speed of turnaround of proofs, etc.