Mike Feimster wrote:
I've enjoyed the exchange as well. I also read the thread on the DITA list
and stumbled across Tim Bray's opinion last week. (Does anyone else see the
irony in the fact that one of the creators of a language that allows you
to create your own markup language is telling
: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 12:06 PM
To: Framers@FrameUsers.com
Subject: Re: Structure/Schema - Custom or off the shelf?
Hi Marcus,
I've enjoyed our exchange. The contrast between Micheal's and Eliot's
opinions is fascinating, and insightful. Eliot has a long-standing
reputation in the markup
Hi Marcus,
I've enjoyed our exchange. The contrast between Micheal's and Eliot's
opinions is fascinating, and insightful. Eliot has a long-standing
reputation in the markup languages community, while Michael's reputation
is solid as a designer of DITA and much of the underlying XSLT
Alan Houser wrote:
> DITA architect Michael Priestley (a co-author of the 2001 paper you
> cited) has more recently addressed the misconception that DITA is an
> exchange format, not an authoring format
> (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dita-users/message/1081). My anecdotal
> experience matches
Hi Marcus,
I've enjoyed our exchange. The contrast between Micheal's and Eliot's
opinions is fascinating, and insightful. Eliot has a long-standing
reputation in the markup languages community, while Michael's reputation
is solid as a designer of DITA and much of the underlying XSLT
Alan:
Those are great comments and bring up some valid points. It will be
interesting to see how Michael Priestley addresses these in his
upcoming DITA workshop -- Introduction to DITA -- at the upcoming DITA
2006 conference this March. I've jotted these issues down and hope to
get Michael
Alan:
Those are great comments and bring up some valid points. It will be
interesting to see how Michael Priestley addresses these in his
upcoming DITA workshop -- Introduction to DITA -- at the upcoming DITA
2006 conference this March. I've jotted these issues down and hope to
get Michael to
Alan Houser wrote:
> Organizations are "successful" when they meet their business
> requirements as efficiently (time and $$$) as possible. I talk lots of
> people _out_ of migrating to XML for this reason. I even occasionally
> say "you're doing just fine with MS Word."
Perhaps our roles are
At 6:08 am +1100 3/2/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DocBook is a worthless bucket of elements. Sorry. I had a look yesterday
and quickly found two examples that were enough to reconfirm my opinion.
The first was that footnotes can contain paras that can contain footnotes,
so you could have
At 5:23 am -0500 3/2/06, Alan Houser wrote:
Unfortunately, there's no way to do this with an XML DTD. However, it's not
hard to determine an element's nesting level when processing XML with XSLT or
even a FrameMaker EDD. For example, a FrameMaker EDD might specify a text
prefix of Element
This is correct -- you can only alert based on nesting depth. I suspect
one could write an FDK client to actually restrict the legal nesting
depth as you describe. One of the more obscure XML schema languages
(Schematron) already provides this capability outside FrameMaker.
-Alan
Steve
Organizations are successful when they meet their business
requirements as efficiently (time and $$$) as possible. I talk lots of
people _out_ of migrating to XML for this reason. I even occasionally
say you're doing just fine with MS Word.
I think the answer to the custom or off-the-shelf
--- Alan Houser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Organizations are successful when they meet their
business requirements as efficiently (time and $$$)
as
possible. I talk lots of people _out_ of migrating
to XML for
this reason. I even occasionally say you're doing
just fine
with MS Word.
Alan Houser wrote:
Organizations are successful when they meet their business
requirements as efficiently (time and $$$) as possible. I talk lots of
people _out_ of migrating to XML for this reason. I even occasionally
say you're doing just fine with MS Word.
Perhaps our roles are one of
Mike Feimster wrote:
> The "Real Life" Migration to Stuctured Doc thread got me thinking. What is
> better? A custom schema or one the "standards" such as Docbook or DITA.
DITA was designed by IBM for data interchange, so was never really
intended as a data authoring structure. This can be
Alan Houser wrote:
> I've valued your opinions over the years, but I must take exception to
> your assessments of both DITA and DocBook. DITA architect Michael
> Priestley (a co-author of the 2001 paper you cited) has more recently
> addressed the misconception that DITA is an exchange
At 6:08 am +1100 3/2/06, mcarr at allette.com.au wrote:
>DocBook is a worthless bucket of elements. Sorry. I had a look yesterday
>and quickly found two examples that were enough to reconfirm my opinion.
>The first was that footnotes can contain paras that can contain footnotes,
>so you could
Unfortunately, there's no way to do this with an XML DTD. However, it's
not hard to determine an element's nesting level when processing XML
with XSLT or even a FrameMaker EDD. For example, a FrameMaker EDD might
specify a text prefix of "Element nested too deeply" to report back to
the
At 5:23 am -0500 3/2/06, Alan Houser wrote:
>Unfortunately, there's no way to do this with an XML DTD. However, it's not
>hard to determine an element's nesting level when processing XML with XSLT or
>even a FrameMaker EDD. For example, a FrameMaker EDD might specify a text
>prefix of
This is correct -- you can only alert based on nesting depth. I suspect
one could write an FDK client to actually restrict the legal nesting
depth as you describe. One of the more obscure XML schema languages
(Schematron) already provides this capability outside FrameMaker.
-Alan
Steve
Organizations are "successful" when they meet their business
requirements as efficiently (time and $$$) as possible. I talk lots of
people _out_ of migrating to XML for this reason. I even occasionally
say "you're doing just fine with MS Word."
I think the answer to the "custom or
--- Alan Houser wrote:
> Organizations are "successful" when they meet their
> business requirements as efficiently (time and $$$)
as
> possible. I talk lots of people _out_ of migrating
to XML for
> this reason. I even occasionally say "you're doing
just fine
> with MS Word."
Mike Feimster wrote:
The Real Life Migration to Stuctured Doc thread got me thinking. What is
better? A custom schema or one the standards such as Docbook or DITA.
DITA was designed by IBM for data interchange, so was never really
intended as a data authoring structure. This can be confirmed
Marcus,
I've valued your opinions over the years, but I must take exception to
your assessments of both DITA and DocBook. DITA architect Michael
Priestley (a co-author of the 2001 paper you cited) has more recently
addressed the misconception that DITA is an exchange format, not an
authoring
Alan Houser wrote:
I've valued your opinions over the years, but I must take exception to
your assessments of both DITA and DocBook. DITA architect Michael
Priestley (a co-author of the 2001 paper you cited) has more recently
addressed the misconception that DITA is an exchange format, not
The Real Life Migration to Stuctured Doc thread got me thinking. What is
better? A custom schema or one the standards such as Docbook or DITA.
I've often thought that if one knows how to create a schema (and the
resulting EDD, DTD, XSD, etc.) you're better off creating your own,
especially since
The main advantages to using one of the standard schemas:
1) It has been developed and used by others so it has the benefit of being
tested and proven with actual documentation.
2) Even if it needs to be customized, you have a head-start in the
development process.
3) If there is already
Hi Michael,
Good points, well taken. Thanks.
Rick
I agree with Rick's points. But there are situations where it might not
be worth the effort digging deep in the available material for a
so-called standard, when -- in the end -- the customized solution still
needs non-standard modifications.
The "Real Life" Migration to Stuctured Doc thread got me thinking. What is
better? A custom schema or one the "standards" such as Docbook or DITA.
I've often thought that if one knows how to create a schema (and the
resulting EDD, DTD, XSD, etc.) you're better off creating your own,
especially
The main advantages to using one of the standard schemas:
1) It has been developed and used by others so it has the benefit of being
tested and "proven" with actual documentation.
2) Even if it needs to be customized, you have a head-start in the
development process.
3) If there is already an
I agree with Rick's points. But there are situations where it might not
be worth the effort digging deep in the available material for a
so-called standard, when -- in the end -- the customized solution still
needs non-standard modifications.
As an example: DocBook comes with many more elements
Hi Michael,
Good points, well taken. Thanks.
Rick
>I agree with Rick's points. But there are situations where it might not
> be worth the effort digging deep in the available material for a
> so-called standard, when -- in the end -- the customized solution still
> needs non-standard
32 matches
Mail list logo
