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.
> Note, again, that the claims made in this thread (and similar ones)
> are *not* that there are certain *methods* or general *methodologies*
> that would save money in this way, but that *using SGML* would save
> money in this way.
Gary misunderstands me here. I am not saying that using SGML will avoid these
costs. I am saying that it is currently impossible for most companies to make
intelligent comparisons between different solutions or technologies to a
process problem because they have no way of measuring the real cost of the
current way of doing things, much less of the alternatives.
> Indeed, the Intel study -- which now seems to have had nothing to do with
SGML
> or its use
The Intel study was part of an analysis of the way they were producing
databooks. As a result of what they learned, they are implementing the
Pinnacles standard, which includes SGML components, to see if it will improve
the process and the quality of the information they publish.
/chet
Chet Ensign
Logical Design Solutions
571 Central Avenue http://www.lds.com
Murray Hill, NJ 07974 censign -at- lds -dot- com [email]
908-771-9221, Ext. 164 [Phone] 908-771-0430 [FAX]
