Talk:Comparison of document markup languages
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Lout?
What about Lout? --Mecanismo 19:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Origin of RTF
Isn't RTF based on TeX? At least the syntax is clearly isnpired on it. I don't have any references, though. --193.86.75.124 11:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] MIF information wrong
MIF was available with the first release of FrameMaker in 1986, and Adobe did NOT invent it. It was developed by Frame Technology Corporation which also produced FrameMaker. Adobe acquired Frame Technology in 1995. This is documented at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framemaker. A better history is found at http://www.daube.ch/docu/fmhist00.html
[edit] Definition of "Structural markup"
What is structural markup? DocBook and DITA clearly create structural markup. It is very doubtful that HTML, XHTML 1.0 and similar XML grammars create structural markup. They do not define any meaningful document structure. Almost anything can occur in any order. The table showing all the listed DTDs as providing structural markup is meaningless.
[edit] S1000D
S1000D is one big international standard for technical publications, especially used in the aerospace and defence industry. Schema and stylesheets are publically available.
It might be quoted in the article too.
home: http://www.s1000d.org/
[edit] Suggestion to merge Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office Open XML formats into this article
Objection. The Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office Open XML formats article appears to contain a large amount of relevant information that cannot be condensed into table form. Much of this information would be lost if the merger took place. —gorgan_almighty 11:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A better place for such information about the ODF vs OOXML debate is http://www.iosn.net/open-standards/organizations/ODFA%20UKAG%20Technical%20White%20Paper.pdf This is much more technically detailed and less politicised than the proposed merge. Perhaps a reference to the above pdf would be sufficient for this site.
The ODF/XML formats are very highly publicized, and as such deserve their own article.
Object to merge. There is heavy politics and computer related news reports specifically about competition between these two formats. OOXML was created as a response to ODF and this article is necessary. --AlexOvShaolin 02:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] merge List of ML's to here, but not Comparison of ODF and OOXML format or licensing
I have tagged "Comparison of OpenDocument and Office Open XML licensing" to merge to "Comparison of OpenDocument and Office Open XML formats". I think this would make more sense than merging either of those articles to here. I do think that the "List of document markup languages" can be merged with this article to some advantage. - Bcharles 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Noting the above objection and no defense for merge, i removed the tags to merge with "Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office Open XML formats". - Bcharles 09:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Latest stable version" column
I don't find this information particularly useful or interesting, but maybe I'm in the minority. In any case, what usefulness the information has depends on it being strictly accurate. But I think the column is unlikely to stay accurate for very long. New versions will be released often, and no one will think to update the article accordingly. Therefore I suggest that the column be deleted. —134.242.21.254 19:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Definition of "control code"
The term "control code", as used in the markup type column, is not explained although Wikipedia in general redirects it to "control character". That interpretation is however incorrect in at least the case of TeX, and I think also nroff. 81.231.39.161 15:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Expand
I tagged this article with {{expand}} template. I think that it can be expanded with i.e. compability tables, etc. I'm not really into this subject, but this table looks kinda small for me, and does not contain much information. Hołek ҉ 08:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] General information: Creator column
I think that renaming the Creator column to Maintainer would be more accurate. Some standards have been created by one company, and their stewardship have later been transfered to another organization. For example, if MIF were standardized by ECMA, the creator would remain Frame, but the maintainer would become ECMA. Or HTML was invented by Tim Berners-Lee, but is maintained by W3C. If nobody object this (small) change, I will do it in a few days. Hervegirod (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
