Russ West says: It is so important for any tech writer to learn about
structured content...
The funny thing is, in the majority of cases, we are not in a position
to proselytize for or against structured documentation. That's usually
decided several pay grades higher by contract deliverable or other
edict. We rarely. If ever, get to choose or even recommend! But a TW who
wishes to remain employable should be able to respond to structured or
unstructured requirements by being able to work in both. The general
trend in technical publishing, I predict (duh!), will require more
automation, more reusability, more interchangeability of data, not less.
If I had to bet on a winner in that horse race, my money would be on
more structured documentation, not less, in our collective future.
-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
s.com] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:09 AM
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Subject: [BULK] RE: Reasons to structure
Importance: Low
Jeremy, I don't think that is harsh at all. What I think is harsh is the
constant discouragement from learning and professional development from
certain members of this list. It is so important for any tech writer to
learn about structured content, and I do not think I am any smarter than
anyone else just because I have expertise in structure. The only
difference with me is that I just spent the last five years being
interested in it, and I would like others to be interested in it as
well. And that excuse about not having time is really quite worn out.
If you work in the tech industry and don't have time to learn, your fate
is sealed.
And by the way, HTML is a perfect example of fully structured content,
and the web is a good example of the miracles that are possible with it.
Thanks for bringing that up.
Message: 29
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:46:00 -0800
From: Jeremy H. Griffith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reasons to Structure
To: framers@lists.frameusers.com
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:56:49 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jeremy Griffith wrote [referring to semantic markup]:
You can do the same with paragraph formats, too. But you can do all
that in UNstructured docs just as easily as in structured.
Maybe *more* easily, when you factor in the time to set up your
structure, and to modify it when you make changes, which is major.
I've only been able to identify one situation in which structured
Frame can do this better than unstructured, and that's when you'd want
nested element tags within a paragraph, since you cam't nest character
formats. (There are easy workarounds for creating the equivalent of
nested paragraph formats, such as using start/end formats and/or
markers.) OTOH, I have yet to see a non-hypothetical case where such
nested char formats were really needed...
Structured Frame is designed for large pubs groups where standard
document designs are required, perhaps for ISO 9000, perhaps for other
corporate policy reasons. For smaller groups, and especially for lone
writers, the setup costs (time and consultants) are likely to exceed
the benefits, much like a CMS (Content Management System) can. There
are excellent consultants around, many on this list, for whom it is a
breeze. If you decide to go this way, hire one.
It will prevent much anguish and hair loss.
This is misinformation, on nearly all counts.
Isn't that a tad harsh, Russ? My point, which you appear to have
missed, is that (as Richard said) semantic markup is good, *and* that
you can do it in unstructured Frame. Do you deny this fact?
I also said that for small groups, the setup costs (time and
consultants) are likely to exceed the benefits. I'll stand by that
assessment, based on using Frame in both its unstructured
*and* structured (formerly known as FrameBuilder) forms over many,
many years, originally on a Sun 2... I didn't say there are *no*
benefits, just that the costs may be greater. Do you assert that the
costs are always insignificant, then?
I am a lone writer who is completely dependent on structured Frame.
Without it, I would need at least twice the manpower to handle the
busywork that it does. Furthermore, I adhere to no industry standard
and make changes to my structured template frequently.
All well and good... but what *else* are you? An expert in structure,
perhaps? How long have you worked with structure?
As I said, There are excellent consultants around, many on this list,
for whom it is a breeze. You are one of the four or five I'd think of
first... Here's the first line on your home page: Welcome to West
Street Consulting, your home for structured FrameMaker(r) plugins and
other utilities. I've also written plugins that work with structured
Frame (Mif2Go does, just fine), but I hardly consider myself a
representative Frame user... nor would I assume that everyone would
