Re: TagWrite anyone?

[Sarah Lee Bihlmayer <tecscrib -at- SIRIUS -dot- COM>]

On Nov. 8, Alison Bloor wrote:

>1. Do you find TagWrite useful? What do you use it for?

>2. Am I right in thinking I could create a template to convert
>   Ventura files to HTML using the Ventura style tags, e.g.
>     Ventura tag 'Main Heading' ->  HTML <H1>
>   etc.?

>3. Can it really be as complicated as it seems (4 manuals, several
>   hundred pages)? After all, it's 'just' a parser, isn't it?

>The bottom line:

>4. Is it worth the effort if all I want to do is the occasional
>   conversion to HTML?

If all you need to do is the occasional conversion, it likely will take
much less time and effort to learn HTML. I've been working with HTML since
its inception, and honestly, it is very simple.  Most of the writers I know
who have learned it recently tell me they were easily able to pick it up in
2 or 3 days.  There are numerous excellent reference books which can be
very helpful in this endeavor, most notably Laura Lemay's "Teach Yourself
HTML" books, not to mention the plethora of resources and information
available on the Internet itself.

The problem with automatic converters is that in many cases, the number and
complexity of stylesheets in the print docs far exceed the range of tags
available in HTML.  If you create a template that specifically defines
which HTML tag to use for each stylesheet in Ventura, you will need to be
familiar with the tags and their usage in order to make the right
decisions.

Not to mention the problem of graphics...how often do you use GIFs and
JPEGs in Ventura files?  Does the converter deal with non-compatible
graphics formats automatically, create new graphics files, and insert the
appropriate tagging into your text files for proper placement as well?

Furthermore, if you are using tables or have any instances of text running
around graphics, how does the converter handle such elements?  Bear in mind
that HTML's simplicity can also be something of a limitation--tables are
only supported in Netscape, and runarounds are currently proposed as an
addition to the next revision of HTML once again are only partially
supported.

Then there is the issue of informational structure.  Print docs are linear
and sequential...readers start at the beginning and read through to the
end.  The Web, on the other hand, is used very differently..."surfing" does
not necessarily happen in sequential order, and using an automatic
conversion utility will not address this issue.  Will the converter decide
for you where your links should appear and how the information should be
divided into linked pages?  I suspect not--which probably means you will
have to open and edit the files to create your links.

If you assume that you will edit and restructure the text files after
converting them, knowledge of HTML is a fail-safe; you will be less likely
to accidentally delete necessary tags or create unnecessary ones, thereby
avoiding errors.

My two cents.


Sarah Lee

"God is in the details."                                --Frank Lloyd Wright
                              Sarah Lee Bihlmayer
                   Print and Online Documentation Specialist
    Technical Writing * Technical/Developmental/Copy/Production Editing
        Technical Illustration * Electronic Prepress * Graphic Design
 POB 27901-312, San Francisco CA 94127 * 415-207-4046 * tecscrib -at- sirius -dot- com

"God is in the details."                                --Frank Lloyd Wright
                              Sarah Lee Bihlmayer
                   Print and Online Documentation Specialist
    Technical Writing * Technical/Developmental/Copy/Production Editing
        Technical Illustration * Electronic Prepress * Graphic Design
 POB 27901-312, San Francisco CA 94127 * 415-207-4046 * tecscrib -at- sirius -dot- com