226 lines
11 KiB
HTML
226 lines
11 KiB
HTML
<!-- MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
|
|
<!--X-Subject: Re: SGML tools aren't so great -->
|
|
<!--X-From-R13: Xbr Qbbcre <wbrNfjryygrpu.pbz> -->
|
|
<!--X-Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 05:29:12 -0400 (EDT) -->
|
|
<!--X-Message-Id: 39114392.6E695462@swelltech.com -->
|
|
<!--X-Content-Type: text/plain -->
|
|
<!--X-Reference: 39109683.6FCB60CA@inreach.com -->
|
|
<!--X-Reference: 3910F965.F036AE45@swelltech.com -->
|
|
<!--X-Reference: 391110CF.606DDB08@inreach.com -->
|
|
<!--X-Head-End-->
|
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML//EN">
|
|
<html>
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>Re: SGML tools aren't so great</title>
|
|
<link rev="made" href="mailto:joe@swelltech.com">
|
|
</head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<!--X-Body-Begin-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
[<a href="msg02256.html">Date Prev</a>][<a href="msg02258.html">Date Next</a>][<a href="msg02254.html">Thread Prev</a>][<a href="msg02289.html">Thread Next</a>][<a href="maillist.html#02257">Date Index</a>][<a href="threads.html#02257">Thread Index</a>]
|
|
<!--X-TopPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-->
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-Begin-->
|
|
<h1>Re: SGML tools aren't so great</h1>
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Subject-Header-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><em>To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Subject</em>: Re: SGML tools aren't so great</li>
|
|
<li><em>From</em>: Joe Cooper <<A HREF="mailto:joe@swelltech.com">joe@swelltech.com</A>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Date</em>: Thu, 04 May 2000 04:32:02 -0500</li>
|
|
<li><em>Cc</em>: LDP <<A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org">ldp-discuss@lists.linuxdoc.org</A>></li>
|
|
<li><em>References</em>: <<a href="msg02238.html">39109683.6FCB60CA@inreach.com</a>> <3910F965.F036AE45@swelltech.com> <<a href="msg02254.html">391110CF.606DDB08@inreach.com</a>></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-date</em>: Thu, 4 May 2000 05:29:12 -0400 (EDT)</li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-from</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-message-id</em>: <HT81AD.A.PmH.jLUE5@murphy></li>
|
|
<li><em>Resent-sender</em>: <A HREF="mailto:ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org">ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org</A></li>
|
|
<li><em>Sender</em>: <A HREF="mailto:joebuck@mail.swelltech.com">joebuck@mail.swelltech.com</A></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<!--X-Head-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-->
|
|
<pre>
|
|
Gary Preckshot wrote:
|
|
>
|
|
>Joe Cooper wrote:
|
|
>
|
|
> >I LIKE Word Perfect. I've been a Word Perfect user since the beginning
|
|
> of time (version 2.0 for DOS to be more precise). But it has it's
|
|
> place. It's place is writing letters, resumes, showy presentation
|
|
> papers that don't need frequent revision, novels, stories, etc.
|
|
> Technical papers, in my humble opinion, are not it's strong suit. But
|
|
> this is definitely NOT a NIH situation. It is a situation of BTFTJ
|
|
> (Best Tool For The Job). DocBook has features that are so perfect for
|
|
> the LDP's needs that it's difficult for me to fathom that there is any
|
|
> argument about using it
|
|
>
|
|
> Having been in an organization that used both WP and Wurd for technical
|
|
> documentation, I can assure that it's both possible and practical. One of
|
|
> the Wurd features that was intensely practical was the "show revisions"
|
|
> feature. Several authors could work on a doc, and you could tell instantly
|
|
> what was new or changed. Revision bars (you know, those vertical lines)
|
|
> automatically were put alongside changes. Wurd also has a very good equation
|
|
> editor, which is essential for technical documentation. I think your humble
|
|
> opinion comes from not using the tool.
|
|
|
|
You're probably quite right. Word is too complicated for me to
|
|
understand.
|
|
|
|
> I don't advocate going to Wurd or WordPerfect, but there certainly seems to
|
|
> be a very provincial attitude here. Some of the desktop publishing packages,
|
|
> like Ventura, do very well on longer docs with many revisions. Many
|
|
> publishing houses use them - they expect authors to write in Wurd using
|
|
> their macro packages, and then they "typeset" them semiautomatically using a
|
|
> DTP package.
|
|
|
|
I won't argue that a well macro'd Word or WP can't do what is needed, as
|
|
I would hope that it can be. I guess I just prefer the raw markup
|
|
itself. Somewhere along the way I started writing all of my HTML and
|
|
SGML by hand in vi, and liking it. It must be a sickness.
|
|
|
|
> >The reason is that DocBook does not just define what a
|
|
> document looks like. In fact that's not even it's main goal. It
|
|
> describes what the content is. 'Examples' are labelled as what they
|
|
> are, not <bold><teletype><center>. So are: user interaction, program
|
|
> output, references to other works, images, diagrams, chapter headings,
|
|
> copyright notices, author names, version numbers, and a ton of other
|
|
> things. These things will still have to be entered in some way that is
|
|
> not immediately made obvious by a point and click interface (how do you
|
|
> iconize those concepts or put them on a menu bar in a simplified
|
|
> manner?).
|
|
>
|
|
> It's easy. Haven't you ever written a word processor macro? You can add all
|
|
> sorts of things, including things that bring up a dialog box and ask you for
|
|
> input. You can even bring up dialog boxes at the start of a new document or
|
|
> at the close of a document to enforce data discipline. You can program these
|
|
> things five ways from Sunday, and you are not limited to a point and click
|
|
> interface. You can vet the entries and make the author enter thing that have
|
|
> to be entered before he/she can continue. These are called templates, and
|
|
> they exist because lots of organizations have the metadata problem, so word
|
|
> processors are infinitely customizable. You just make a template for the
|
|
> kind of document you want. Thereafter, anyone using the template is guided
|
|
> to enter things they have to enter, and use styles they have to use.
|
|
>
|
|
> > However, I see that you have hopes of never SEEING the SGML.
|
|
> That just isn't going to work. You will have to see the SGML (or at
|
|
> least a functional WYSIWYG equivelent, which will HAVE to be just as
|
|
> complicated). I've so far not seen much about how Word Perfect works with
|
|
> SGML documents and if it can deal with the full range of tags needed for
|
|
> a technical document.
|
|
>
|
|
> I'm resigned to seeing it once, when I write the templates and macros, but
|
|
> never thereafter. All the SGML does is convey information. All I should have
|
|
> to see is the information interface, not the grubby SGML details. Yeah, I
|
|
> know WP has reveal codes. They're there because WP screws up, and sometimes
|
|
> you have to fix it.
|
|
|
|
Hey, you're not so bad, after all. No matter what they say about you.
|
|
;-) You DO understand everything that is needed for the LDP to be
|
|
"right". I won't argue with you anymore, because we're on the same side
|
|
and we agree entirely. We just like a different toolset. I got no
|
|
bones with choosing a different toolset. As I understand it there are
|
|
even people who like Emacs.
|
|
|
|
Regardless of your choice of tools, it sounds like you're someone the
|
|
LDP needs around.
|
|
|
|
My argument is with those who think there should be some debate over
|
|
whether the LDP should insist upon an open document standard that
|
|
provides the level of flexibility and power that SGML (preferably
|
|
DocBook) does. You're not one of those, as it seems you've got plenty
|
|
of experience in writing technical docs. You're expertise will be a
|
|
welcome addition around here I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
> >it doesn't make much sense to
|
|
> stick to documentation that focuses on appearence more than
|
|
> 'findability'.
|
|
>
|
|
> Have you got a limited view of word processors! What do you think the rest
|
|
> of the world has been doing? Word processors support findability,
|
|
> versioning, revision, and they can pop up dialog boxes virtually anywhere
|
|
> and anytime you please to collect metadata or enforce styles. Do you imagine
|
|
> the commercial and technical world has been awaiting DocBook with baited
|
|
> breath? People have been writing and maintaining technical documents with
|
|
> word processors for years. By now, all successful word processors support
|
|
> these activities. Your paeans of praise for what DocBook might do in the
|
|
> future are several years out of date for both WordPerfect and Wurd.
|
|
|
|
I don't know that I'd go that far. If you've only seen the very
|
|
outdated LDP SGML stuff, then you haven't seen all of DocBook. There is
|
|
a reason that a large number of tech shops (O'Reilly being enough proof
|
|
for me...but Sun, SGI and many others as well) are using DocBook. It
|
|
has it's geewhiz features...some things that even the venerable Word and
|
|
WP can't match (while those two have some definite benefits over
|
|
DocBook, also).
|
|
|
|
> I'll see what it's SGML looks like when I get it. I suppose I'll have to
|
|
> write some macros to put in the various information blocks required by
|
|
> DocBook. Can't be much worse than Microsoft's help rtf format. They wrote a
|
|
> bunch of Wurd macros to do that.
|
|
|
|
I hope you'll make those macros available to anyone who would prefer a
|
|
word processor interface for their SGML editing? Sounds like something
|
|
that could be of great value to people who go for that sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
I'm about through with this thread. ;-)
|
|
--
|
|
Joe Cooper <joe@swelltech.com>
|
|
Affordable Web Caching Proxy Appliances
|
|
<A HREF="http://www.swelltech.com">http://www.swelltech.com</A>
|
|
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to ldp-discuss-request@lists.debian.org
|
|
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
|
|
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
|
|
<hr>
|
|
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
|
|
<!--X-References-->
|
|
<ul><li><strong>References</strong>:
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="02238" href="msg02238.html">Re: SGML tools aren't so great</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> Gary Preckshot <garrell@inreach.com></li></ul></li>
|
|
<li><strong><a name="02254" href="msg02254.html">Re: SGML tools aren't so great</a></strong>
|
|
<ul><li><em>From:</em> Gary Preckshot <garrell@inreach.com></li></ul></li>
|
|
</ul></li></ul>
|
|
<!--X-References-End-->
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-->
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Prev by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg02256.html">Re: if SGML is so great...</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by Date:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg02258.html">RE: if SGML is so great...</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Previous by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg02254.html">Re: SGML tools aren't so great</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Next by thread:
|
|
<strong><a href="msg02289.html">Re: SGML tools aren't so great</a></strong>
|
|
</li>
|
|
<li>Index(es):
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><a href="maillist.html#02257"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="threads.html#02257"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-->
|
|
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
|
|
</body>
|
|
</html>
|