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.
Subject:RE: Comparison of XML tools for writing documents From:"Broberg, Mats" <mabr -at- flir -dot- se> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:32:59 +0100
eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com wrote:
> > With Epic, there's no import/export since it works with native XML.
>
> Complete rubbish. Epic still needs to process the data into
> and out of the editing environment. I don't see how it has
> much of an advantage in this case. The only advantage is the
> perception of seamlessness as the "save as XML" is the
> automatic default.
Far from "complete rubbish".
Software that works with, and fully supports, native XML files - as
opposed to software like Framemaker - does not "process" the data into
and out of the editing enviroment. They merely apply a screen stylesheet
on the XML data to make the editing more user-friendly. This does
nothing to the XML files themselves.
The advantages are clear - no read/write rules, no re-mapping of Unicode
to some propriety internal character encoding, no propriety internal
element definitions (like Framemaker's EDD) etc. It's a tad unfair -
both to fully XML / Unicode compliant software and to "me-XML-too"
software like Framemaker - to compare the both.
Framemaker may work very well for projects where issues like
translation, automation, and integration to other systems and workflows
are not very important. But it is not the way to go if these issues are
important and one is very serious about setting up an XML workflow. If
this is the case, the way to go is solutions that fully supports XMl /
Unicode - e.g. Epic Editor, XMetal, XML Client etc.
Best regards,
Mats Broberg
Technical Documentation Manager
FLIR Systems AB
WEBWORKS FINALDRAFT - EDIT AND REVIEW, REDEFINED
Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo: http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Technical Communication Certificate online - Malaspina-University College, Canada. Online training in technical writing, software (FrameMaker, RoboHelp, Dreamweaver, Acrobat), document & web design, writing manuals, job search. www.pr.mala.bc.ca/tech_comm.htm for details.
---
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- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.techwr-l.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
