[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] FW: Article: Keeping pace with James Clark
And so I will also forward the response slightly ammended: It is the multiple audience problem where each audience has a preferred interpretation and there is cognitive dissonance (lack of consistency) produced by the attempt to serve both with the same message. We sometimes say that the data model plus a transformation solves this problem but it is not true in all instances. The best one can do is test and compromise, then try to prevent a particular case in a particular situation with a high sensitivity to the perceived inconsistency that could create a catastrophic result. The programmer vs author issue is not a problem to be solved; in the words of a trendy management theory, it is a polarity to be managed. People are paranoid because life IS dangerous and has only one outcome. You can pick the route but not the destination. :-) len -----Original Message----- From: Doug Rudder [mailto:drudder@d...] Len Bullard wrote: > XML has almost single handedly given markup > the reputation of being "computer friendly > and author unfriendly". Why? SGML was actually > friendlier to authors and hard on the programmers. > We know why. It isn't always a good thing > to insist on the programmer as the primary > beneficiary. Nice observation! While it is true that we don't want "editorial License" to run wild, we also do not want to let optimizing for programmers to damage the integrity of the content. The company I work for publishes drug information references in multiple formats; as such, consistency of organization and presentation is important, both from a human readability standpoint and from the standpoint of repurposing the content for multiple outputs. XML/SGML can be a valuable aid in maintaining consistency for both purposes. But there have been instances where DTD change requests have been submitted to accommodate inconsistent authoring (often subtle, and the requestor does not realize it is the same content presented in a different way); there have also been instances where we have been told: "We should do everything we can to make it easier for the programmer", including damaging the integrity of the content model (this argument has almost always involved making it easier for a specific instance, not for *all* instances, even though the requested change affects the markup for *all* users). Quality of content should *not* be sacrificed to benefit programming if at all possible. Striking the balance between the need for flexibility in authoring and the need for adequate ease of programming is problematic at best. To weight the technology too much either way can have a negative effect on its overall usefulness. ======================= Douglas Rudder Publishing System Specialist Facts and Comparisons Phone: 314-216-2227 e-mail: drudder@d... www.drugfacts.com =======================
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|