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: Giving up on XML From:"Mike Starr" <mikestarr-techwr-l -at- writestarr -dot- com> To:<techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:47:38 -0500
It also occurs to me that adopting a tool that imposes structured
documentation doesn't do anything at all to impose consistent structure. I
can have a boatload of content that's all structured with none of it
structurally similar.
Mike
--
Mike Starr WriteStarr Information Services
Technical Writer - Online Help Developer - Website developer
Graphic Designer - Desktop Publisher - MS Office Expert
Phone: (262) 694-1028 - Tollfree: (877) 892-1028 - Fax:(262) 697-6334
Email: mike -at- writestarr -dot- com - Web: http://www.writestarr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Borokowski" <athloi -at- yahoo -dot- com>
To: <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Giving up on XML
>I was intrigued by this recent writing:
>
> "The most commonly-stated reasons for adopting
> structured documentation techniques include:
> Automation, Reuse, Single-sourcing, Productivity gains
> (resulting from the above)
>
> However, none of these (or other) advantages require
> structuring at all. Non-SGML markup languages such as
> troff or TeX, and even help-authoring tools like
> RoboHelp, all allow automation, reuse, and
> single-sourcing.
>
> Another purported benefit of structured authoring is
> that it enforces consistency both within a document
> and across a suite of related documents. Again,
> structure is not necessary to gain this benefit: a
> properly-designed style sheet (combined with good
> old-fashioned peer pressure) is sufficient."
>
>http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-BLFrRSM1crQ40jjr38W8Q2JQtELQ?p=9
>
> I agree on some levels: structured documents, like
> virtualization, are an overhyped trend.
>
> On another level, I find them useful in that they are
> often machine parseable.
>
> On still another level, I find the convergence of RDF
> and XML interesting as XML is a structural markup,
> while RDF is a value-typing/definitional markup.
>
> Kollar made some good points about the utility of
> simply a style sheet and some common sense. I think
> the dumbing-down of authoring to the point where
> machines could do it is a silly idea. On the other
> hand, I like the thought of writing information into
> an XML format, tagging it with RDF-style definitional
> markup, and then putting a kind of data tainting on it
> so it knows where to go, whether a public CMS or a
> private intranet. Letting the machines work for us, in
> other words.
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include single source authoring, team authoring,
Web-based technology, and PDF output. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
Now shipping: Help & Manual 4 with RoboHelp(r) import! New editor,
full Unicode support. Create help files, web-based help and PDF in up
to 106 languages with Help & Manual: http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-