TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: TECHWR-L: XML & the future of tech writing From:"Steve Hudson" <steve -at- wright -dot- com -dot- au> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 2 Nov 2001 09:34:19 +1100
I suggest everyone has a run over to adobe and checks out XMP - a suggested
standard which we are think of subscribing too as well for our new products.
XMP is an XML subset specifically aimed at documentation. Its only in its
infancy at the moment, but holds a lot of promise (insert any other
vapourware cliche you like).
Steve Hudson
Principal Technical Writer
HDK List MVP
Wright Technologies (Aus)
steve -at- wright -dot- com -dot- au
The best way to predict the future... is to create it!
-----Original Message-----
From: david -dot- locke -at- amd -dot- com
There are two big difference between SGML and XML. First, SGML was
standardized by the vendors before a market existed. The standardization
effort was meant to build a market, but it also created a lack of
competition. Second, SGML was created for documentation purposes and XML was
created for programming purposes. This shows when we look for XML-based TW
tools.
There is a bigger lesson here for TWs, SGML failed, because if focused on
documentation, and XML succeeded, because it didn't. In other words, money
will get spent on things other than documentation. A clear business case has
not been built for documentation. Documentation in relationship to SGML
includes many more things than the documentation TWs create. I don't see
this changing in the future.
All the effort to single source is based on the idea that a company can fill
the checkbox without spending more money. Or from a more financial
perspective, we can spend even less money on doc than we have in the past.
Or from a customer perspective, the vendor can push more acquisition costs
off on customers as negative use costs. The thing that will save us will
happen when customers push back. They already editorials in Business Week
about bad doc.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Be a published author! iUniverse gives you: a high-quality paperback, a
custom cover design, and distribution to 25,00 retailers. Join our almost
10,000 published authors today. http://www.iuniverse.com/publish/default.asp
Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
