Hi:
As for the heading styles, well I am not really interested in producing
technical documentation. Most journalists don't using headings much
Ummm... At least one per story
(although I wouldn't presume to call myself one)
I would
I am one. I was a metropolitan-graded journalist for ten years
before I became a technical writer (shows how old I am... In my day, there
were "metropolitan" and "country" grades.)
and even bullet points
are seen as a sign of sloppy thinking by professional writers.
Not by "this" writer, who has been paid for it daily for the past 30 years.
Despite the (obviously wrong!!) opinions of some of my editors, *I* consider
myself "professional"
The thing I look for is whether they are used
"appropriately". When I am hiring writers, the first thing I do is ask them
to "write" something. With a pencil and paper. If it doesn't contain at
least one bulleted list, their application probably won't proceed much
further (yeah, I pick a subject that almost guarantees that they must create
at least one un-ordered vertical list and one ordered (numbered) list).
As for why anyone would write this macro, well I still use Word 97, and
as you know XML is not supported in that version.
That's true. But if you want to make some money, I would put my effort into
re-expressing what you have as an XML Transform for Office 2003/Office 12.
I take your point that you would need to buy the Enterprise edition of
Office 2003 to enable you to do this (the lower versions do not have the XML
developer tools). But I am convinced there will be a huge demand for tools
such as that and that demand will hit like a hammer immediately Office 12 is
released. If your tool is tested and debugged by then, you'll make a mint!
I also don't trust Microsoft not to break my code some point down
the line.
True, but XML is a W3C RFP, so they can't easily break that!
And also their DTD wasn't available when I had the idea back
in 2001.
Not even to Microsoft
They hadn't written it yet
You will also note that several companies are making a living
with exactly this sort of thing.
True. I would join them if I were you...
the pants off writing XML in long-hand from my point of view, and now I
know it works on the Mac my next computer is going to be an iMac G5.
Mac Word 4.0 was where it all started for me anyway, back in 1989.
I think that may be a poor strategic move. I am waiting for the MacIntel.
I am certain that Microsoft and Apple will try to ensure that everything
made for the latest Macs will "work" on the Motorola processors. But if it
comes to the question of dropping a feature on the older version or spending
a large amount of money: well... both companies need to give us a reason to
buy the new product.
So while I am sure that in the first version, compatibility between the two
platforms will be good, I would not bet my future on it remaining hat way if
I were you. I also suspect that the system demands of Office 12 will be
higher than Office 2004, and many people find Office 2004 too slow on an
iMac. Office 12 appears to be a seriously much nicer product to use, and
more powerful in many ways. But I suspect that all this added functionality
will require a bit more power to drive it.
You only have to wait six months to get a MacIntel, so I would urge you to
wait... I am...
Cheers
--
Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.
John McGhie <
[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410
