TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
> This is correct if you're making the assumption that the only reason a
tech writer would have
> the need to use XML knowledge would be for document creation. I don't know
of many
> tech-writing jobs in the software industry these days that do not require
some knowledge
> of XML as a subject matter, because as you say, it is being used to build
a variety of
> solutions to a large number of computing problems . . .
>
> >Probably not much.
This is a good point, though perhaps a trifle overstated. Even though XML
plays some role in almost every software system these days, that does not
mean that every technical writer writing about those systems needs to know
it, anymore than they all need to know Java or C++. If you are documenting
the code base or the system architecture, as opposed to the UI, or if the
application has a public API, then you would need to know the underlying
technologies. For such applications you are as likely to need to know XML as
you are to need to know SQL or Java -- neither more nor less -- and for
pretty much the seem reasons.
Basically, technical writers need to know those technologies that directly
impact their readers or that directly impact their own processes. XML may
fall into either of these categories, but probably not to quite the extent
that the current XML mania suggests.
Faddish technologies tend to attract a lot interest from technophiles, and
there is nothing wrong with that. But if you don't feel any burning interest
in XML (and it would seem that our original correspondent does not), and if
you are not spearheading a structured document initiative or documenting an
XML API (and I guess the original correspondent probably isn't) then I can't
see any compelling reason for the average technical writer to take a generic
XML course.
XML isn't hard to learn, but because it is a generic low level tool, not an
end-user application, it can be very confusing and difficult to understand
out of context. (Witness the incredible amount of nonsense talked about it
in the press!) Like anything else, it will be easiest to learn when it is
presented in a particular and practical context that the learner understands
and cares about. There is little to be gained by studying it in abstract
without a specific application in mind.
---
Mark Baker
Analecta Communications
www.analecta.com
+1 613 614 5881
Have you tried the latest in Help Authoring from RoboHelp?
Try ROBOHELP X5 for Free - Now with Word 2003 support, Content
Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more!
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
