Re: Giving up on XML

Subject: Re: Giving up on XML
From: eric -dot- dunn -at- ca -dot- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com
To: "Bob Doyle" <bobdoyle -at- skybuilders -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:43:59 -0500

Hmm. Yet another combination of myth and half truth.

"Bob Doyle" <bobdoyle -at- skybuilders -dot- com> wrote on 03/16/2007 04:33:59 PM:
> XML is a very general markup language. Like SGML (standard
> generalized markup language), it needs a list of the allowable
> content elements against which a document is "validated.".

> This is the DTD (document type definition), also called the content
> model - a list of allowable elements, what order they can be in, how
> many are allowed of each, etc. It's like the EDD (element definition
> document) of Framemaker, which (unfortunately) also includes the
> styles information. Modern good practice is to separate presentation
> from content.

That's a perfect description. While I wouldn't necessarily be as harsh as
that with regards to the EDD.
Regardless of the tool or approach, at some point the relationship between
structure and presentation (incorporating the specific rendering tools
capabilities) has to merge. Seeing as the DTD part of the EDD is only one
line per element, it's a nice reference while editing the EDD for
formatting rules.

> To produce output, XML uses XSLT (a stylesheet and transformation
> language - and a procedural programming language written in XML itself).
> So XML has three levels, the allowed structure and content model
> (DTD, the content itself (XML), and the presentation styles (XSLT).
> HTML mixes all three together. Framemaker mixes content model and

Well, I'd disagree that HTML mixes them all together. The HTML DTD is
separate. And if the HTML uses CSS then the presentation is separated as

> A bit of history.
> XML was standardized in 1996 -a kind of cross between HTML and SGML.

No. There is no relation between HTML and XML.

> Over 10 years earlier, SGML was the latest version of GML. It's best
> known tool is DocBook, which was designed for book format documentation.

Well, Docbook is ONE SGML (and now XML) implementation. But, as far as
"best known" would be dependant on what industry you work in. ATA, CALS,
and others are probably far more widely used than Docbook.

As for the history, read: I
wish people would pay more attention to the phrase:"It was developed
primarily for the purpose of holding the results of troff conversion of
UNIX documentation, so that the files could be interchanged ". Not to work
in, but to use to interchange content.

> IBM used SGML and DocBook for their documentation. Then they used
> XML and DocBook.
> Then they realized that technical documentation should no longer be
> in book format!
> Rather it should be written in reusable chunks.
> The idea of chunking technical documentation goes back to the 1960's
> and Information Mapping ( Information
> Mapping recognized many Information Blocks (chunks), Information
> Maps (arrangements of blocks), and Information Types.

I wouldn't give IM that much benefit. Others have done it before and
since. They just didn't TM it and charge a fortune for classes.

> IBM and many other organizations invested many man years and
> millions of dollars creating DTDs to use with XML. But the
> generality and eXtensibility proved way to flexible. It was very
> difficult to get agreement on DTDs.

Because sets of information can be VERY different. The reason it's
difficult to get agreement and wide use of a DTD is the same as the
difficulty in designing one single database. Too specific, it can't be
used by others. Too general, it can't track required information.

And excuse my bluntness, but the statement "eXtensibility proved way to
flexible" is ludicrous. IBM most certainly didn't have an internal
extensibility problem. You design supporting infrastructure around a DTD
and the DTD is designed around the data and requirements. It's not as if
every user can then go and modify them.

If you are to accept the described strengths of DITA, one of the biggest
is being able to design your own DTDs to create your own DITA topics.

> The genius of DITA is that created one basic DTD (actually a small
> set) and also a set of XSLTs. They implemented all their tech docs in

DITA is just another approach. I wouldn't classify it as genius. Whether
the DTD meets your needs or not is something you have to validate.

> They gave them to you and to me, so we would not have to hassle with
> our own DTDs.

But if you aren't producing IBM documentation, you will likely be doing
your organisation a disservice if you didn't learn to adapt the DTDs and
scripts to your specific needs.

> Many of the concerns of techwhirlers expressed in this thread about
> Giving Up on XML were experienced by IBM years ago.

But they were addressed in a way that satisfied IBM. That's not to say it
might not be perfect out-of-the-box for your needs.

> They are way past those concerns and so should we be.

No. Every writer should always be concerned that their information is
being captured, stored, and presented in the best manner possible.

As the last is an advert for a service that will eventually require
payment, I would question the glowing enthusiasm for one solution as the
one-size-fits-all panacea.

I'd also wonder if writers who can't set-up the DITA implementations in
commercial software or get the open tool kit functioning won't have
difficulty grasping other basic changes in thinking required by working in
a DITA environment.

Eric L. Dunn
Senior Technical Writer


This e-mail communication (and any attachment/s) may contain confidential
or privileged information and is intended only for the individual(s) or
entity named above and to others who have been specifically authorized to
receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read,
copy, use or disclose the contents of this communication to others. Please
notify the sender that you have received this e-mail in error by reply
e-mail, and delete the e-mail subsequently. Please note that in order to
protect the security of our information systems an AntiSPAM solution is in
use and will browse through incoming emails.
Thank you.

Ce message (ainsi que le(s) fichier/s), transmis par courriel, peut
contenir des renseignements confidentiels ou protégés et est destiné à
l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute autre personne est par
les présentes avisée qu?il est strictement interdit de le diffuser, le
distribuer ou le reproduire. Si vous l?avez reçu par inadvertance,
veuillez nous en aviser et détruire ce message. Veuillez prendre note
qu'une solution antipollupostage (AntiSPAM) est utilisée afin d'assurer la
sécurité de nos systems d'information et qu'elle furètera les courriels


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: Giving up on XML: From: Bob Doyle

Previous by Author: re: Giving up on XML
Next by Author: Re: Rant: Giving up on XML
Previous by Thread: Re: Giving up on XML
Next by Thread: Re: Giving up on XML

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

Sponsored Ads