Re: pure XML
I agree with Michael on this... You can't use the FrameMaker conditional text feature with other editors because, well, you can't. So the Maker PIs make no sense and are correctly ignored by those editors. OTOH, nothing prevented you from using special show/hide attributes in Maker. As I recall, earlier versions even had a way to deal with them, didn't they? Was it through the EDD, or was it through r/w rules??? I forget (or am I dreaming?). Anyway, you could always have written a plugin that would do the right thing. (And building plugins or other modifications for editors is not unusual, as I understand it.) For Maker 9, they've just built attribute filtering directly into the product. No doubt via a plugin on the rendering side. Who wants to bet some special variant of conditional text is involved? You can use that, or you can use standard conditional text, or both. There may be cases where you would want to use Maker conditional text. This is an example of how the markup model evolved apart from the Maker model (a good thing, and pretty much by definition), and how the Maker model was modified to catch up. Not every editor implements every possible markup construct out of the box. No editor renders markup natively except for text editors. As far as I know, since Maker 8 (UNICODE) the significant limitation to Maker is in tables (no tables within tables -- can you live with that limit, yes or no?). Otherwise, you should be able to bend Maker to any markup's will. Whether Adobe foots the bill is strictly a marketing decision. I still wish the API explicitly supported injecting custom IDs in elements. cud Am 17.02.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Sarah O'Keefe: So, if you use the original FrameMaker model of conditional text, you will have interoperability problems. There are other features with similar issues. Isn't interoperability more a question of process design than of product features? I doubt whether two arbitrary XML editors are interoperable in all editing aspects. It seems to me, that every editor has its own take on tracking changes, for example. Also handling of tables and support for graphics come to my mind. - Michael ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
I knew if this question stayed out there long enough, I'd get a lot of varied responses. Thanks for all your input (output?). We will never run out of things to learn in this profession! Jan Whitacre Excellent Information Developer/Content Strategist Email: jwhi...@verizon.net Cell: 214-704-7952 ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
pure XML
I agree with Michael on this... You can't use the FrameMaker conditional text feature with other editors because, well, you can't. So the Maker PIs make no sense and are correctly ignored by those editors. OTOH, nothing prevented you from using special show/hide attributes in Maker. As I recall, earlier versions even had a way to deal with them, didn't they? Was it through the EDD, or was it through r/w rules??? I forget (or am I dreaming?). Anyway, you could always have written a plugin that would do the right thing. (And building plugins or other modifications for editors is not unusual, as I understand it.) For Maker 9, they've just built attribute filtering directly into the product. No doubt via a plugin on the rendering side. Who wants to bet some special variant of conditional text is involved? You can use that, or you can use standard conditional text, or both. There may be cases where you would want to use Maker conditional text. This is an example of how the markup model evolved apart from the Maker model (a good thing, and pretty much by definition), and how the Maker model was modified to catch up. Not every editor implements every possible markup construct out of the box. No editor renders markup natively except for text editors. As far as I know, since Maker 8 (UNICODE) the significant limitation to Maker is in tables (no tables within tables -- can you live with that limit, yes or no?). Otherwise, you should be able to bend Maker to any markup's will. Whether Adobe foots the bill is strictly a marketing decision. I still wish the API explicitly supported injecting custom IDs in elements. cud >Am 17.02.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Sarah O'Keefe: > >> So, if you use the original FrameMaker model of conditional text, you >> will have interoperability problems. There are other features with >> similar issues. > >Isn't "interoperability" more a question of process design than of product >features? > >I doubt whether two arbitrary XML editors are interoperable in all editing aspects. It seems to me, >that every editor has its own >take on tracking changes, for example. Also handling of tables and support for graphics come to my mind. > >- Michael
XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
I knew if this question stayed out there long enough, I'd get a lot of varied responses. Thanks for all your input (output?). We will never run out of things to learn in this profession! Jan Whitacre Excellent Information Developer/Content Strategist Email: jwhit15 at verizon.net Cell: 214-704-7952
Re: pure XML
Hi Meg, I think you're confusing pure with valid and impure with proprietary. A file can adhere to the XML standard without being valid against any particular DTD or schema, and being invalid against any content model doesn't mean it's not adhering to the XML standard. I shy away from industry standard as a description of a kind of information. DocBook and DITA are standards, yes, but finding the industry is the hard part. The cool digital video editors the kids use these days use XML to keep clips and transitions straight, and the XML is not DITA or DocBook. Microsoft Office uses XML as a storage format, and Microsoft would never use a public content model. Adobe uses custom XML as in interchange format for InDesign. One could argue that because many more people use Microsoft Word than DocBook and DITA (and, I suppose InDesign) put together, Microsoft's schema is the technical documentation industry standard. I wouldn't be the one, but numbers are compelling. As far as customizing public standards, I say have at it. Why should anyone settle for something that doesn't suit their needs exactly? Let's face it, public standards are built to accommodate everything, and one size fits all really means it fits nobody well. Clothing off the rack should be tailored. Nobody uses the format templates shipped with FrameMaker without customizing them. The big selling point of standards, after the word free, is interoperability, but I don't see that as a benefit. Macy's doesn't tell Gimbels, so what value is there in them being able to share information? Departments within companies shouldn't go off on their own, but it isn't a problem if the whole company does. Kevin Just to add to the mix. I'm noticing also that companies, irregardless of tool, customize their XML in some way that makes it become 'unpure'. The files that I authored in Epic, that I thought should have been very close to the open source version of XML, where unreadable by the open source compiler. I had nothing fancy, just a heading, and a couple of paragraphs. I find it facinating. And it feels like there is the potential for some sort of fancy doctoral study on this sort of thing. How open source/industry standard things become customized and particular to a company or group of people. DocBook vs DITA included. Both are XML, but o, how different they are. -meg Message: 1 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:09:51 -0600 From: Jan Whitacre jwhi...@verizon.net Subject: XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML? I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ?pure XML,?...that it adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as kev...@dim.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/kevinf%40dim.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: pure XML
Hi Kevin, I completely agree! These days, walls between companies become porous. The whole company involves suppliers, customers, and competitors. Low transaction costs are more important than short-lived optimization. Anyway there are large sunk costs in establishing a publishing infrastructure; take a look at the estimated costs of TEI, DocBook and DITA at www.ohloh.net. Publishing infrastructure has become commoditized, at least on a component level. DocBook was originally designed as an interchange standard, and subsequently became a publishing framework. The NLM/NCBI Journal Archiving DTD was developed as an archival standard, and is now also becoming an authoring standard. TEI, DocBook and DITA became ubiquitous exactly because these public standards were designed from the ground to be adapted and customized, not because they magically solve any problems out of the box. It is still your customers, your process, your responsibility -- even if 80% of the effort can be shared. The complaint that FrameMaker does not save 'pure XML' might actually have (had) some merit; the DocBook starter application used to mess things up somewhat (eg the indexterm problem). We just got FM9 at work, at I look forward to see if things are better now. By the way, public standards are not necessarily free. One of the standard jokes about the SGML standard (ISO 8879:1986) is that 'nobody owns the standard'; ISO's pricing policy has kept the number of people who do own a copy of the Standard at an absolute minimum. [NOT the comp.text.sgml FAQ] kind regards Peter Ring On 02/17/2010 09:02 AM, Kevin Farwell wrote: snip/ As far as customizing public standards, I say have at it. Why should anyone settle for something that doesn't suit their needs exactly? Let's face it, public standards are built to accommodate everything, and one size fits all really means it fits nobody well. Clothing off the rack should be tailored. Nobody uses the format templates shipped with FrameMaker without customizing them. The big selling point of standards, after the word free, is interoperability, but I don't see that as a benefit. Macy's doesn't tell Gimbels, so what value is there in them being able to share information? Departments within companies shouldn't go off on their own, but it isn't a problem if the whole company does. Kevin snip/ ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: pure XML
I think you're confusing pure with valid and impure with proprietary. A file can adhere to the XML standard without being valid against any particular DTD or schema, and being invalid against any content model doesn't mean it's not adhering to the XML standard. Exactly right! Some of us seem to be forgetting what X in XML stands for: eXtensible. The XML Standard does not enforce any particular set of tags for a particular use - it was *exactly* this limitation/problem in HTML that XML was designed/intended to avoid. As you mention, is is then the use of the Schema (and the older DTD stuff) that defines the specifics for any particular usage or application. This allows *any* XML editor to read XML from FrameMaker (or other sources) without difficulty. I have read FrameMaker XML into my other XML editor (I happen to use XMLSpy from Altova for lots of other reasons - designing SOAP interfaces, for example) without any issues whatsoever. Z ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: pure XML
Please correct me if I'm wrong... I've been out of the markup loop for too long. But... I remember in the old SGML days it was explained to me that SGML is a grammar, and not a language. The same would hold true for XML. Each DTD or Schema makes a language -- a specific implementation of the grammar. So Docbook and DITA are very different, but both are (ostensibly) pure XML. Further, DITA provides ways to extend DITA and still be DITA. Impure XML would refer to constructs in the markup that are not within spec. I suppose some vertical deployments of an XML system could rely on impure XML. This would be viewed with horror by most people in the industry. It seems to me it would be unwise as well. The cost of relying on non-standard XML would ultimately outstrip the cost of complying with the spec (or so the theory goes). A good candidate for impure XML could be the Microsoft Word XML, but even that might be pure, technically speaking -- even if the goal is to tie you to Microsoft Word when you use it. Getting back to FrameMaker, I believe FrameMaker does express constructs that are specific to its own processing, but those expressions are within spec, and so the XML would be considered pure. The practical question would be, can you properly render a document from FrameMaker-generated XML, no matter what process you use to render it? In other words, is the FrameMaker XML tied so much to the proprietary system that it defeats the purpose of XML? I believe FrameMaker does not tie you to a proprietary system. But if you want to take full advantage of the proprietary FrameMaker system, then you can use the special, proprietary constructs. Of course, the devil is in the details. * ust to add to the mix.? I'm noticing also that companies, irregardless of tool, customize their XML in some way that makes it become 'unpure'.? The files that I authored in Epic, that I thought should have been very close to the open source version of XML, where unreadable by the open source compiler.? I had nothing fancy, just a heading, and a couple of paragraphs. I find it facinating.? And it feels like there is the potential for some sort of fancy doctoral study on this sort of thing.? How open source/industry standard things become customized and particular to a company or group of people. DocBook vs DITA included. Both are XML, but o, how different they are. * ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: pure XML
On Feb 17, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Chris Despopoulos wrote: Getting back to FrameMaker, I believe FrameMaker does express constructs that are specific to its own processing, but those expressions are within spec, and so the XML would be considered pure. The practical question would be, can you properly render a document from FrameMaker-generated XML, no matter what process you use to render it? In other words, is the FrameMaker XML tied so much to the proprietary system that it defeats the purpose of XML? I believe FrameMaker does not tie you to a proprietary system. But if you want to take full advantage of the proprietary FrameMaker system, then you can use the special, proprietary constructs. Interesting discussion. Let's take conditional content. If you use FrameMaker's conditional text feature to mark up conditional content, FrameMaker will output the conditions in the XML file as processing instructions. Other XML authoring tools do not know what to do with those PIs. Therefore, you lose your conditional functionality if you move the information out of FrameMaker. However, you can use attributes to mark up conditional information. You can show/hide based on attributes in FrameMaker, and other tools understand attributes and, usually, the idea of filtering based on attributes. (You may or may not be able to show/hide, but when you render to your final output, you can filter as appropriate.) So, if you use the original FrameMaker model of conditional text, you will have interoperability problems. There are other features with similar issues. Regards, Sarah Sarah S. O'Keefe President oke...@scriptorium.com phone: 919 459 5362 blog: www.scriptorium.com/blog twitter: sarahokeefe ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: pure XML
Am 17.02.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Sarah O'Keefe: So, if you use the original FrameMaker model of conditional text, you will have interoperability problems. There are other features with similar issues. Isn't interoperability more a question of process design than of product features? I doubt whether two arbitrary XML editors are interoperable in all editing aspects. It seems to me, that every editor has its own take on tracking changes, for example. Also handling of tables and support for graphics come to my mind. - Michael -- ___ Michael Müller-Hillebrand: Dokumentations-Technologie Adobe Certified Expert, FrameMaker Lösungen und Training, FrameScript, XML/XSL, Unicode Blog: http://cap-studio.de/ - Tel. +49 (9131) 28747 ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
pure XML
Hi Meg, I think you're confusing "pure" with valid and "impure" with proprietary. A file can adhere to the XML standard without being valid against any particular DTD or schema, and being invalid against any content model doesn't mean it's not adhering to the XML standard. I shy away from "industry standard" as a description of a kind of information. DocBook and DITA are standards, yes, but finding the industry is the hard part. The cool digital video editors the kids use these days use XML to keep clips and transitions straight, and the XML is not DITA or DocBook. Microsoft Office uses XML as a storage format, and Microsoft would never use a public content model. Adobe uses custom XML as in interchange format for InDesign. One could argue that because many more people use Microsoft Word than DocBook and DITA (and, I suppose InDesign) put together, Microsoft's schema is the technical documentation industry standard. I wouldn't be the one, but numbers are compelling. As far as customizing public standards, I say have at it. Why should anyone settle for something that doesn't suit their needs exactly? Let's face it, public standards are built to accommodate everything, and one size fits all really means it fits nobody well. Clothing off the rack should be tailored. Nobody uses the format templates shipped with FrameMaker without customizing them. The big selling point of standards, after the word "free," is interoperability, but I don't see that as a benefit. Macy's doesn't tell Gimbels, so what value is there in them being able to share information? Departments within companies shouldn't go off on their own, but it isn't a problem if the whole company does. Kevin >Just to add to the mix. I'm noticing also that companies, >irregardless of tool, customize their XML in some way that makes it >become 'unpure'. > >The files that I authored in Epic, that I thought should have been >very close to the open source version of XML, where unreadable by >the open source compiler. I had nothing fancy, just a heading, and >a couple of paragraphs. > >I find it facinating. And it feels like there is the potential for >some sort of fancy doctoral study on this sort of thing. How open >source/industry standard things become customized and particular to >a company or group of people. DocBook vs DITA included. Both are >XML, but o, how different they are. > >-meg > > > > >Message: 1 >Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:09:51 -0600 >From: Jan Whitacre >Subject: XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML? > I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ?pure XML,?...that it >adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. > > > >___ > > >You are currently subscribed to Framers as kevinf at dim.com. > >Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. > >To unsubscribe send a blank email to >framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com >or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/kevinf%40dim.com > >Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit >http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
pure XML
Hi Kevin, I completely agree! These days, walls between companies become porous. "The whole company" involves suppliers, customers, and competitors. Low transaction costs are more important than short-lived optimization. Anyway there are large sunk costs in establishing a publishing infrastructure; take a look at the estimated costs of TEI, DocBook and DITA at www.ohloh.net. Publishing infrastructure has become commoditized, at least on a component level. DocBook was originally designed as an interchange standard, and subsequently became a publishing framework. The NLM/NCBI Journal Archiving DTD was developed as an archival standard, and is now also becoming an authoring standard. TEI, DocBook and DITA became ubiquitous exactly because these public standards were designed from the ground to be adapted and customized, not because they magically solve any problems out of the box. It is still your customers, your process, your responsibility -- even if 80% of the effort can be shared. The complaint that FrameMaker does not save 'pure XML' might actually have (had) some merit; the DocBook starter application used to mess things up somewhat (eg the problem). We just got FM9 at work, at I look forward to see if things are better now. By the way, public standards are not necessarily free. One of the standard jokes about the SGML standard (ISO 8879:1986) is that 'nobody owns the standard'; ISO's pricing policy has kept the number of people who do own a copy of the Standard at an absolute minimum. [NOT the comp.text.sgml FAQ] kind regards Peter Ring On 02/17/2010 09:02 AM, Kevin Farwell wrote: > As far as customizing public standards, I say have at it. Why should > anyone settle for something that doesn't suit their needs exactly? > Let's face it, public standards are built to accommodate everything, > and one size fits all really means it fits nobody well. Clothing off > the rack should be tailored. Nobody uses the format templates shipped > with FrameMaker without customizing them. The big selling point of > standards, after the word "free," is interoperability, but I don't > see that as a benefit. Macy's doesn't tell Gimbels, so what value is > there in them being able to share information? Departments within > companies shouldn't go off on their own, but it isn't a problem if > the whole company does. > > Kevin >
pure XML
> I think you're confusing "pure" with valid and "impure" with proprietary. A file can adhere to the XML standard without being valid against any particular DTD or schema, and being invalid against any content model doesn't mean it's not adhering to the XML standard. Exactly right! Some of us seem to be forgetting what "X" in XML stands for: "eXtensible". The "XML Standard" does not enforce any particular set of tags for a particular use - it was *exactly* this limitation/problem in HTML that XML was designed/intended to avoid. As you mention, is is then the use of the Schema (and the older DTD stuff) that defines the specifics for any particular usage or application. This allows *any* XML editor to read XML from FrameMaker (or other sources) without difficulty. I have read FrameMaker XML into my other XML "editor" (I happen to use XMLSpy from Altova for lots of other reasons - designing SOAP interfaces, for example) without any issues whatsoever. Z
pure XML
Please correct me if I'm wrong... I've been out of the markup loop for too long. But... I remember in the old SGML days it was explained to me that SGML is a grammar, and not a language. The same would hold true for XML. Each DTD or Schema makes a language -- a specific implementation of the grammar. So Docbook and DITA are very different, but both are (ostensibly) pure XML. Further, DITA provides ways to extend DITA and still be DITA. Impure XML would refer to constructs in the markup that are not within spec. I suppose some vertical deployments of an XML system could rely on "impure" XML. This would be viewed with horror by most people in the industry. It seems to me it would be unwise as well. The cost of relying on non-standard XML would ultimately outstrip the cost of complying with the spec (or so the theory goes). A good candidate for impure XML could be the Microsoft Word XML, but even that might be pure, technically speaking -- even if the goal is to tie you to Microsoft Word when you use it. Getting back to FrameMaker, I believe FrameMaker does express constructs that are specific to its own processing, but those expressions are within spec, and so the XML would be considered pure. The practical question would be, can you properly render a document from FrameMaker-generated XML, no matter what process you use to render it? In other words, is the FrameMaker XML tied so much to the proprietary system that it defeats the purpose of XML? I believe FrameMaker does not tie you to a proprietary system. But if you want to take full advantage of the proprietary FrameMaker system, then you can use the special, proprietary constructs. Of course, the devil is in the details. * ust to add to the mix.? I'm noticing also that companies, irregardless of tool, customize their XML in some way that makes it become 'unpure'.? The files that I authored in Epic, that I thought should have been very close to the open source version of XML, where unreadable by the open source compiler.? I had nothing fancy, just a heading, and a couple of paragraphs. I find it facinating.? And it feels like there is the potential for some sort of fancy doctoral study on this sort of thing.? How open source/industry standard things become customized and particular to a company or group of people. DocBook vs DITA included. Both are XML, but o, how different they are. *
pure XML
On Feb 17, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Chris Despopoulos wrote: > Getting back to FrameMaker, I believe FrameMaker does express > constructs that are specific to its own processing, but those > expressions are within spec, and so the XML would be considered > pure. The practical question would be, can you properly render a > document from FrameMaker-generated XML, no matter what process you > use to render it? In other words, is the FrameMaker XML tied so > much to the proprietary system that it defeats the purpose of XML? > I believe FrameMaker does not tie you to a proprietary system. But > if you want to take full advantage of the proprietary FrameMaker > system, then you can use the special, proprietary constructs. Interesting discussion. Let's take conditional content. If you use FrameMaker's conditional text feature to mark up conditional content, FrameMaker will output the conditions in the XML file as processing instructions. Other XML authoring tools do not know what to do with those PIs. Therefore, you lose your conditional functionality if you move the information out of FrameMaker. However, you can use attributes to mark up conditional information. You can show/hide based on attributes in FrameMaker, and other tools understand attributes and, usually, the idea of filtering based on attributes. (You may or may not be able to show/hide, but when you render to your final output, you can filter as appropriate.) So, if you use the original FrameMaker model of conditional text, you will have interoperability problems. There are other features with similar issues. Regards, Sarah Sarah S. O'Keefe President okeefe at scriptorium.com phone: 919 459 5362 blog: www.scriptorium.com/blog twitter: sarahokeefe
pure XML
Am 17.02.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Sarah O'Keefe: > So, if you use the original FrameMaker model of conditional text, you > will have interoperability problems. There are other features with > similar issues. Isn't "interoperability" more a question of process design than of product features? I doubt whether two arbitrary XML editors are interoperable in all editing aspects. It seems to me, that every editor has its own take on tracking changes, for example. Also handling of tables and support for graphics come to my mind. - Michael -- ___ Michael M?ller-Hillebrand: Dokumentations-Technologie Adobe Certified Expert, FrameMaker L?sungen und Training, FrameScript, XML/XSL, Unicode Blog: http://cap-studio.de/ - Tel. +49 (9131) 28747
Re: pure XML
Just to add to the mix. I'm noticing also that companies, irregardless of tool, customize their XML in some way that makes it become 'unpure'. The files that I authored in Epic, that I thought should have been very close to the open source version of XML, where unreadable by the open source compiler. I had nothing fancy, just a heading, and a couple of paragraphs. I find it facinating. And it feels like there is the potential for some sort of fancy doctoral study on this sort of thing. How open source/industry standard things become customized and particular to a company or group of people. DocBook vs DITA included. Both are XML, but o, how different they are. -meg Message: 1 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:09:51 -0600 From: Jan Whitacre jwhi...@verizon.net Subject: XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML? I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ?pure XML,?...that it adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
pure XML
Just to add to the mix.? I'm noticing also that companies, irregardless of tool, customize their XML in some way that makes it become 'unpure'.? The files that I authored in Epic, that I thought should have been very close to the open source version of XML, where unreadable by the open source compiler.? I had nothing fancy, just a heading, and a couple of paragraphs. I find it facinating.? And it feels like there is the potential for some sort of fancy doctoral study on this sort of thing.? How open source/industry standard things become customized and particular to a company or group of people. DocBook vs DITA included. Both are XML, but o, how different they are. -meg ? Message: 1 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:09:51 -0600 From: Jan Whitacre <jwhi...@verizon.net> Subject: XML Output? from FrameMaker not Pure XML? ?I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ?pure XML,?...that it adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging.?
Re: XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
I'd like to address the red herring (lurking if not actually swimming in this topic) about whether the file format is native XML. Because that point is immaterial... No matter what format you use for storage, the stored file has to be converted to some binary representation that your authoring tool can manipulate. Even your favorite browser, while it would claim native HTML, converts the HTML to a binary format that it can render with formatting and dynamics. Competitors of Maker have made this claim in the past -- that Maker is not native SGML/XML, but that they are. That's hogwash. The so-called native XML has to be loaded into an internal model that the tool uses, period. The issue to consider here is whether the tool's model suits your needs. No tool comes with a model to handle all schemas and DTDs out of the box. And it is true that the Maker model was developed before SGML was on the Frame Technology radar. As far as I know, the one place where this is a problem is in tables -- you can't have tables within tables. To a lesser degree (it causes some extra translations effort), you have to deal with differences such as graphics handling, where FrameMaker binary representations correspond to attributes that you have to declare in read/write rules. And some markup constructs need to be collapsed into FrameMaker markers... Details at that level cause more effort to set up your application, and they are artifacts of the FrameMaker binary model having been designed before the advent of SGML. But I repeat... The only thing you cannot do in Maker (that I'm aware of) is tables within tables. Alongside these considerations, you should look at your work flow and desired output. Do you need tables within tables? Are you looking at PDF output? Do you already have FrameMaker in the house? How much will it cost to deploy FrameMaker structured apps compared to other products? There are cases for and against FrameMaker here. But please, when somebody tells you that FrameMaker isn't *native* XML, take a look beneath the surface of that statement. You could just as easily say that FrameMaker natively supports XML and FrameMaker binary. So it's twice as good. Either statement is rediculous. cud ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
RE: XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
Hi Jan, I'll put my two cents in as well. The XMl that Frame creates is absolutely standards-based XML that can be interpreted by any XML editor. I use Frame and other XML editors as well, on the same files, and there is no problem going from one to the other. What the person who told you this might have meant is that there are many aspects of Frame that are not part of XML--conditional text, variables, etc. To accommodate these things, Frame adds things like entity declarations to ensure that, for example, your variables are preserved during a Frame-XML round trip. Frame also has its own way of formatting tables and images that is quite different from the way XML does it. So, again--and I'll use DITA XML as an example--the CALS table model includes a colspec element that determines column width, ruling, etc. Frame hides the colspec element because it is using the Table Designer properties to record this information and there are rules operating behind the scenes to translate the Table Designer properties to colspec attributes. However, if you look at the XML, you'll see that the colspec element is indeed there. So I think it would be better to say that the XML from Frame is different than what you might create if you sat down with a simpler XML editor and created the content, but it is not degraded or proprietary. Best, Leigh From: jwhi...@verizon.net To: framers@lists.frameusers.com Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:09:51 -0600 Subject: XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML? I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ³pure XML,²...that it adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. That was the rationale for a company I interviewed with to move from FrameMaker to MadCap Flare? I am interested in making sure I use the best tool for XML output. Thanks for all responses! -- Jan Whitacre 214-704-7952 Whit Write: Technical communication that puts the user first. _ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/ ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
Thanks Scott, After researching and talking with Rick Quatro, I concur. I don't know what other benefit the client found in MadCap Flare that they said was not present in FrameMaker. After some initial work in the TCS 1.2, the integrated suite seems to provide great output for single sourcing. With all the single-sourcing alternatives presented to tech writers today, it's like jumping in to a boiling cauldron...just looking for the best sieves to filter what I need. Thanks much, On 2/14/10 10:30 PM, Scott Prentice s...@leximation.com wrote: Hi Jan... What you were told is not true. XML created by Frame is as pure as that created by any other XML editor. Whoever told you that was misinformed. Frame is a bit more work to set up for authoring XML since you need to create a structure application (unless one already exists for your XML model). But unlike other XML editors, once you're set up for authoring you can publish to PDF very easily. It's basically front-loading the publishing effort. Whether Frame is the right XML editor for your needs is a whole different question. It sounds like you might want to do a bit more research. Cheers, ...scott On Feb 14, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Jan Whitacre wrote: I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ³pure XML,²...that it adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. That was the rationale for a company I interviewed with to move from FrameMaker to MadCap Flare? I am interested in making sure I use the best tool for XML output. Thanks for all responses! -- Jan Whitacre 214-704-7952 Whit Write: Technical communication that puts the user first. ___ -- Jan Whitacre Cell: 214-704-7952 Whit Write: Technical communication that puts the user first. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
I'd like to address the red herring (lurking if not actually swimming in this topic) about whether the file format is native XML. Because that point is immaterial... No matter what format you use for storage, the stored file has to be converted to some binary representation that your authoring tool can manipulate. Even your favorite browser, while it would claim native HTML, converts the HTML to a binary format that it can render with formatting and dynamics. Competitors of Maker have made this claim in the past -- that Maker is not native SGML/XML, but that they are. That's hogwash. The so-called native XML has to be loaded into an internal model that the tool uses, period. The issue to consider here is whether the tool's model suits your needs. No tool comes with a model to handle all schemas and DTDs out of the box. And it is true that the Maker model was developed before SGML was on the Frame Technology radar. As far as I know, the one place where this is a problem is in tables -- you can't have tables within tables. To a lesser degree (it causes some extra translations effort), you have to deal with differences such as graphics handling, where FrameMaker binary representations correspond to attributes that you have to declare in read/write rules. And some markup constructs need to be collapsed into FrameMaker markers... Details at that level cause more effort to set up your application, and they are artifacts of the FrameMaker binary model having been designed before the advent of SGML. But I repeat... The only thing you cannot do in Maker (that I'm aware of) is tables within tables. Alongside these considerations, you should look at your work flow and desired output. Do you need tables within tables? Are you looking at PDF output? Do you already have FrameMaker in the house? How much will it cost to deploy FrameMaker structured apps compared to other products? There are cases for and against FrameMaker here. But please, when somebody tells you that FrameMaker isn't *native* XML, take a look beneath the surface of that statement. You could just as easily say that FrameMaker natively supports XML and FrameMaker binary. So it's twice as good. Either statement is rediculous. cud
XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
Hi Jan, I'll put my two cents in as well. The XMl that Frame creates is absolutely standards-based XML that can be interpreted by any XML editor. I use Frame and other XML editors as well, on the same files, and there is no problem going from one to the other. What the person who told you this might have meant is that there are many aspects of Frame that are not part of XML--conditional text, variables, etc. To accommodate these things, Frame adds things like entity declarations to ensure that, for example, your variables are preserved during a Frame-XML round trip. Frame also has its own way of formatting tables and images that is quite different from the way XML does it. So, again--and I'll use DITA XML as an example--the CALS table model includes a colspec element that determines column width, ruling, etc. Frame hides the colspec element because it is using the Table Designer properties to record this information and there are rules operating behind the scenes to translate the Table Designer properties to colspec attributes. However, if you look at the XML, you'll see that the colspec element is indeed there. So I think it would be better to say that the XML from Frame is different than what you might create if you sat down with a simpler XML editor and created the content, but it is not degraded or proprietary. Best, Leigh From: jwhi...@verizon.net To: framers at lists.frameusers.com Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:09:51 -0600 Subject: XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML? I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ?pure XML,?...that it adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. That was the rationale for a company I interviewed with to move from FrameMaker to MadCap Flare? I am interested in making sure I use the best tool for XML output. Thanks for all responses! -- Jan Whitacre 214-704-7952 Whit Write: Technical communication that puts the user first. _ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469227/direct/01/
XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ³pure XML,²...that it adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. That was the rationale for a company I interviewed with to move from FrameMaker to MadCap Flare? I am interested in making sure I use the best tool for XML output. Thanks for all responses! -- Jan Whitacre 214-704-7952 Whit Write: Technical communication that puts the user first. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
Hi Jan... What you were told is not true. XML created by Frame is as pure as that created by any other XML editor. Whoever told you that was misinformed. Frame is a bit more work to set up for authoring XML since you need to create a structure application (unless one already exists for your XML model). But unlike other XML editors, once you're set up for authoring you can publish to PDF very easily. It's basically front-loading the publishing effort. Whether Frame is the right XML editor for your needs is a whole different question. It sounds like you might want to do a bit more research. Cheers, ...scott On Feb 14, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Jan Whitacre wrote: I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not “pure XML,”...that it adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. That was the rationale for a company I interviewed with to move from FrameMaker to MadCap Flare? I am interested in making sure I use the best tool for XML output. Thanks for all responses! -- Jan Whitacre 214-704-7952 Whit Write: Technical communication that puts the user first. ___ ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
Re: XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
Hello, Not true, but first is the problem of pure XML. It's been a while since I used Flare, but I recall it wrote only XHTML and elements in its own namespace. As XML should be extensible, I'd say Flare, while what its storages format is indeed pure XML, is not purely an XML authoring tool. It's a Flare authoring tool. (Please, no flaming. Flare is a pretty sharp tool, but the question is about XML authoring.) Scott Prentice is right. FrameMaker makes XML as pure as can be. The problem is users can make big mistakes by not paying attention to how their XML gets saved. I believe such inattention is the source FrameMaker's reputation as an XML editor, and it's a bad rap. Xmetal and Arbortext Editor will always write XML, but they can also mess up your files pretty well if you aren't keeping an eye on them. Kevin I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not pure XML,...that it adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. That was the rationale for a company I interviewed with to move from FrameMaker to MadCap Flare? I am interested in making sure I use the best tool for XML output. Thanks for all responses! -- Jan Whitacre 214-704-7952 Whit Write: Technical communication that puts the user first. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as kev...@dim.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/kevinf%40dim.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info. ___ You are currently subscribed to Framers as arch...@mail-archive.com. Send list messages to fram...@lists.frameusers.com. To unsubscribe send a blank email to framers-unsubscr...@lists.frameusers.com or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/archive%40mail-archive.com Send administrative questions to listad...@frameusers.com. Visit http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ?pure XML,?...that it adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. That was the rationale for a company I interviewed with to move from FrameMaker to MadCap Flare? I am interested in making sure I use the best tool for XML output. Thanks for all responses! -- Jan Whitacre 214-704-7952 Whit Write: Technical communication that puts the user first.
XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
Hi Jan... What you were told is not true. XML created by Frame is as "pure" as that created by any other XML editor. Whoever told you that was misinformed. Frame is a bit more work to set up for authoring XML since you need to create a structure application (unless one already exists for your XML model). But unlike other XML editors, once you're set up for authoring you can publish to PDF very easily. It's basically front-loading the publishing effort. Whether Frame is the right XML editor for your needs is a whole different question. It sounds like you might want to do a bit more research. Cheers, ...scott On Feb 14, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Jan Whitacre wrote: > I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ?pure > XML,?...that it > adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. That was the rationale for a > company I > interviewed with to move from FrameMaker to MadCap Flare? > I am interested in making sure I use the best tool for XML output. > > Thanks for all responses! > > -- > Jan Whitacre > > 214-704-7952 > > Whit Write: Technical communication > that puts the user first. > > ___ > > >
XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
Hello, Not true, but first is the problem of pure XML. It's been a while since I used Flare, but I recall it wrote only XHTML and elements in its own namespace. As XML should be extensible, I'd say Flare, while what its storages format is indeed pure XML, is not purely an XML authoring tool. It's a Flare authoring tool. (Please, no flaming. Flare is a pretty sharp tool, but the question is about XML authoring.) Scott Prentice is right. FrameMaker makes XML as pure as can be. The problem is users can make big mistakes by not paying attention to how their XML gets saved. I believe such inattention is the source FrameMaker's reputation as an XML editor, and it's a bad rap. Xmetal and Arbortext Editor will always write XML, but they can also mess up your files pretty well if you aren't keeping an eye on them. Kevin >I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not "pure XML,"...that it >adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. That was the rationale for a company I >interviewed with to move from FrameMaker to MadCap Flare? >I am interested in making sure I use the best tool for XML output. > >Thanks for all responses! > >-- >Jan Whitacre > >214-704-7952 > >Whit Write: Technical communication >that puts the user first. > >___ > > >You are currently subscribed to Framers as kevinf at dim.com. > >Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. > >To unsubscribe send a blank email to >framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com >or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/kevinf%40dim.com > >Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit >http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML?
Thanks Scott, After researching and talking with Rick Quatro, I concur. I don't know what other benefit the client found in MadCap Flare that they said was not present in FrameMaker. After some initial work in the TCS 1.2, the integrated suite seems to provide great output for single sourcing. With all the single-sourcing alternatives presented to tech writers today, it's like jumping in to a boiling cauldron...just looking for the best sieves to filter what I need. Thanks much, On 2/14/10 10:30 PM, "Scott Prentice" wrote: > Hi Jan... > > What you were told is not true. XML created by Frame is as "pure" as > that created by any other XML editor. Whoever told you that was > misinformed. > > Frame is a bit more work to set up for authoring XML since you need to > create a structure application (unless one already exists for your XML > model). But unlike other XML editors, once you're set up for authoring > you can publish to PDF very easily. It's basically front-loading the > publishing effort. > > Whether Frame is the right XML editor for your needs is a whole > different question. It sounds like you might want to do a bit more > research. > > Cheers, > > ...scott > > > On Feb 14, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Jan Whitacre wrote: > >> I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ?pure >> XML,?...that it >> adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. That was the rationale for a >> company I >> interviewed with to move from FrameMaker to MadCap Flare? >> I am interested in making sure I use the best tool for XML output. >> >> Thanks for all responses! >> >> -- >> Jan Whitacre >> >> 214-704-7952 >> >> Whit Write: Technical communication >> that puts the user first. >> >> ___ >> >> >> -- Jan Whitacre Cell: 214-704-7952 Whit Write: Technical communication that puts the user first.
