RE: Rant: Giving up on XML

Subject: RE: Rant: Giving up on XML
From: "John Rosberg" <jrosberg -at- interwoven -dot- com>
To: "Janice Gelb" <janice -dot- gelb -at- sun -dot- com>, <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:35:46 -0500

At the risk of dating myself -- this sounds a bit like some grumbling I
heard when the department in which I labored was told to turn in their
IBM Selectrics and start using a Wang Word Processing system -- "I'm a
writer, not a mumble-mumble typesetter . . . . "

Ms Gelb's post is well taken -- the tools chosen should match the task
as well as is possible (if I were writing for an English audience, I'd
write "horse for courses" -- sorry the pet peeve thread has stuck in my

All that said, I find myself just a little surprised that our industry
still does not have access to the simple-to-use, easily affordable,
end-to-end single-source tools for which many were searching ten years
ago . . .

Thanks for putting up with my frustration, as we're involved in a search
by which we can improve our efficiency, and the lack of the above named
solution is frustrating -- when a vendor or colleague tells me to hire
my own IT department to assemble and maintain a publishing solution, and
they are not joking, I am gobsmacked.


-----Original Message-----
From: Janice Gelb [mailto:janice -dot- gelb -at- sun -dot- com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:16 PM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: Re: Rant: Giving up on XML

Gene Kim-Eng wrote:
> My point is, I'm not going to "learn XML and XML technology,"
> in order to write documents. If I have to "learn" a "technology"
> instead of that technology evolving to support my needs, I'm
> not likely to adopt it. And neither are most other writers whose
> companies grumble about why they need to have a copy of
> FrameMaker or Acrobat Pro instead of being able to work in
> Word and some open source PDF printer driver.

This is not a valid comparison. Requiring
writers to write with tools that do not
support the type of documentation they need
to produce is not the same as saying that a
move to a structured tagged environment is
going to require some education in both the
tools and the paradigm shift necessary to
work successfully in that environment.

I certainly agree that companies should
carefully examine whether the benefits of
moving to a structured tagging language
and output tools are worth the upheaval
to their documentation staff. For small
companies with limited documentation sets,
the effort is probably not worth it. But
it sounds like you're saying that the effort
would never be worth it to you no matter
what the potential benefits might be to
your documentation.

-- Janice

Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with
janice -dot- gelb -at- sun -dot- com | this message is the return address


Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include single source authoring, team authoring,
Web-based technology, and PDF output.

Now shipping: Help &amp; Manual 4 with RoboHelp(r) import! New editor,
full Unicode support. Create help files, web-based help and PDF in up
to 106 languages with Help &amp; Manual:

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.


Re: Rant: Giving up on XML: From: Janice Gelb

Previous by Author: RE: Opinion anyone?
Next by Author: RE: The Freelance Life: Is It Good?
Previous by Thread: Re: Rant: Giving up on XML
Next by Thread: RE: Rant: Giving up on XML

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

Sponsored Ads