<cranky old geezer>
I remember using nroff back in the days before WYSIWYG, and I've got a
few bridges to sell to anyone who thinks that it is time to go back.
</cranky old geezer>
IMO, the pro XML/XSLT faction miss-characterizes the writer's need for
WYSIWYG. I don't think that the writers are taking a hard line on
controlling the final presentation. I do think that they're taking a
hard line on having proper presentation as they write. They're trying
to present information and <Strong>if they want to make a
point</Strong>, then tagging it does not have the same visceral effect
as "making their point in bold." I think that they need to see a
presentation that reflects the information that they're trying to
convey.
As an analog, suppose you visit your software department and order them
to switch to a new indentation and brace style and require that they
use a new editor that would enforce the new standards. After all, they
are really providing a set instructions to the compiler and they don't
need to be concerned with the presentation of those instructions and
how they interact with those instructions.
IMO, we will not see wide spread generation of content in XML until we
have wide spread acceptance of a WYSIWYG editor that generates it.
Right now, I think that means that you're more or less limited to
taking controls of styles in Word and training people to use styles
religiously.
Dwight
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/enriched
---
--
http://cms-list.org/
trim your replies for good karma.
- RE: [cms-list] a word about writers and CM Austin, Darrel
- Dwight Shih
