Re: Typemarking

Subject: Re: Typemarking
From: Dick Margulis <margulis -at- fiam -dot- net>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 17:35:04 -0400

Bill Darnall wrote:


I believe I am 100% accurate about typemarking.


I am not trying to get into an argument with you. Markup for composition is an area I am very familiar with and have a great deal of experience in. However, the term "typemarking" appears (from what I can determine) to have a more restricted meaning, and in the context of Carol's original question, I suspect (although I cannot prove) that my interpretation is closer to what is required.


[This E-mail scanned for viruses at]


ROBOHELP X4 - THE INDUSTRY STANDARD IN HELP AUTHORING Buy RoboHelp by July 31st and receive a $100 mail-in rebate!
Find out more about RoboHelp X4:

Mercer University's online MS Program in Technical Communication Management:
Preparing leaders of tomorrow's technical communication organizations today.
See or write George Hayhoe at hayhoe_g -at- mercer -dot- edu -dot-
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 for more resources and info.

RE: Typemarking: From: Bill Darnall

Previous by Author: Re: Typemarking
Next by Author: Re: UML
Previous by Thread: RE: Typemarking
Next by Thread: DocBook XML DTD/schema

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads