RE: [HATT] ARTICLE: Choosing an XML Editor (

Subject: RE: [HATT] ARTICLE: Choosing an XML Editor (
From: "Kathleen" <keamac -at- cox -dot- net>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:13:21 -0700

I'd like to recommend this article to TWs who might be starting to think
about future program needs, and to anyone who might be interested in
doing a study, specifically on HATT. (I know they've been done in the
past, but there are gaps in the information, plus recent developments.)

W/o going into a detailed critique, I'd reformat the tables in terms of
strengths (e.g., which did what or who met "3 of 5" criteria) to make
them clearer, but generally it was very useful.

I'd be interested in doing a HATT study in conjunction with others.
Please contact me if you'd be interested.


-----Original Message-----
From: HATT -at- yahoogroups -dot- com [mailto:HATT -at- yahoogroups -dot- com] On Behalf Of
Grant Hogarth
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:56 PM
Subject: [HATT] ARTICLE: Choosing an XML Editor (

I thought that this would be of interest...
It's from the 15 April 2005 Daily Newslink.


Choosing an XML Editor
T. van den Broek and Ylva Berglund, Arts and Humanities Data Service

With the increasing popularity of XML, the number of XML editors is also
increasing and it can be difficult to choose the editor that best suits
a particular user or task. The aim of this Information Paper is to
provide an introduction to different features XML editors can have and
the extent to which these features are implemented in various editors.
It also presents the result of an evaluation exercise where different
user groups tried a number of the editors. The paper first outlines the
different types of XML editors that are available and their main
characteristics. Thirty different features of XML editors that were
identified as useful by the benchmarking exercise (van den Broek 2004)
are then outlined, followed by tables showing how these are implemented
within different editors. Finally, the twenty editors evaluated in the
benchmarking exercise are presented, highlighting the editors which were
preferred by four different types of users. Which editor you choose to
use depends on a number of factors.

Grant Hogarth
Technical Writer, Equis International
ghogarth -at- Equis -dot- com <mailto:ghogarth -at- Equis -dot- com> /
Grant -dot- Hogarth -at- Reuters -dot- com
RM: Grant -dot- Hogarth -dot- Reuters -dot- com -at- Reuters -dot- net
<mailto:Grant -dot- Hogarth -dot- Reuters -dot- com -at- Reuters -dot- net>
Direct: (+1) 801.270.3180 Main Phone: 801.265.9996 Main Fax:


Accelerate the document lifecycle with full online discussions and unique feedback-management capabilities. Unlimited, efficient reviews for Word
and FrameMaker authors. Live, online demo:

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Previous by Author: Re: Definition of "User-Friendly" Was Re: Engineering design practice
Next by Author: RE: conceptual material in procedures
Previous by Thread: Re: Definition of "User-Friendly" Was Re: Engineering design practice
Next by Thread: Your meds

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

Sponsored Ads