Re: SGML (short)

Subject: Re: SGML (short)
From: Gary Merrill <merrill -at- HYPERION -dot- PDIAL -dot- INTERPATH -dot- NET>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 01:57:08 GMT

> Tim Altom <taltom -at- iquest -dot- net> writes:
> You've struck the lost chord, Chet. Even creating up-front processes for
> SGML, regardless of future savings, are usually considered too costly.
> Clients listen eagerly to us until the price pops up, then they rapidly lose
> interest. We've even offered to do cost analysis to justify going to a
> database style, only to be rebuffed.
> >

Could this have been because the same result (from the point
of view of the client) could have been achieved more quickly and
in a less costly manner by using well known publishing packages,
styles, templates, etc. (in FrameMaker, Interleaf, or even Word)
than becoming involved in the more labor intensive effort of creating
an SGML environment, developing the DTDs, the FOSIs, and the
necessary tools to get to (from the client's point of view) the same point?

How exactly *do* you estimate the "future savings" and measure this
agains the "up-front processes"? And how *is* this compared to to
alternative approaches with which a client might be familiar? What sort
of hard figures and justification is the client presented with?

----------
Gary Merrill


Previous by Author: Re: TW on the development team
Next by Author: Comma splices
Previous by Thread: Re: SGML (short)
Next by Thread: Job-hunting in Israel


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads