You are a Jack Ass! That is the most technical way
I could think of putting it.
Later
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Westbay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: The documentation, xml, and stylesheets
> Asbell-san wrote:
>
> > Mike, I am forced to work with xslt every day, [...]
>
> It sounds to me like you're one of those many people who majored in
something
> that had nothing to do with computers, then found yourself in the IT
field.
> I was a Computer Science major. I taught myself HTML, XML, SGML, XSL, and
> the rest of the alphabet soup in my own time after work simply because I
> found them fascinating.
>
> > [...] and each day I find a new
> > reason to say "what in the WORLD do people see in this?!". It has its
> > place in changing from schema to schema, but who want to get so deep
into a
> > technology which is very hard to control, and in complex schemas
consumes
> > more effort than it is worth to get what you want out of it.
>
> Let me venture another guess. You're working primarily with poorly
> documented and or thought out DTDs that are ever changing as more
> functionality is desired, leaving you to constantly update the style sheet
> transforms to satisfy the whims of your boss.
>
> First of all, getting in deep with the technology gives one a better
> understanding of it. I started learning HTML in 1995 armed with Mosaic
and
> my trusty vi editor. GUIs are nice, but IMHO, they separate the creator
from
> the underlying technologies too much. I'd rather know what's going on
under
> the hood. Why does a page render the way it does. Getting a good
> fundamental knowledge of the low level technologies allows me to spot and
fix
> problems quickly. It also allows for better efficiency when using the
> technologies.
>
> With a better understanding, the technologies are not hard to control. A
> well written schema, even a very complex one (like DocBook) is well worth
the
> effort of getting a good understanding of the underlying technologies.
>
> As Winterfeldt-san pointed out, the whole XML/XSL bit it may be overkill
for
> a few scattered unrelated documents. But when the documentation starts
> increasing, a well thought out schema for allowing flexible access to what
> would be a mountian load of dead trees saves a great deal in the long run.
>
> I don't know if my evengilism of a technology can change your mind. We
> obviously have very different backgrounds (I was the only one in my
English
> classes to turn in papers written in LaTeX [edited in vi, of course] -
> everyone else used WordPerfect or [gasp!] a typewriter). And our jobs
seem
> to give different levels of satisfaction: I'd study this stuff on my own
if
> I didn't get to work with it anyway, whereas you're "forced to work with
xslt
> every day."
>
> I think it's great that you're volunteering to help with the
documentation.
> But I also think it's strange that you hadn't gone through what is there
and
> seen how it is generated from XML via XSLT. I would have expected some
sort
> of professional curiosity as to how others deal with documentation issues,
> since that seems to be your line of work. But then, maybe it's me
applying
> my own drive to learn more ways of doing things to improve my own skills
and
> the way I do my job. (Sorry, I forget sometimes that not everyone takes a
> job in the tech field by choice.)
>
> --
> Michael Westbay
> Work: Beacon-IT http://www.beacon-it.co.jp/
> Home: http://www.seaple.icc.ne.jp/~westbay
> Commentary: http://www.japanesebaseball.com/
>
>
