TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Revisiting Web Tools From:Maynard Hogg <maynard -at- GOL -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 20 Feb 1997 19:09:20 +0900
Mary McCauley-Stiff <Mary_McCauley-Stiff -at- STRATUS -dot- COM> wrote:
>I don't think it makes sense to use a word-processor or desktop
>publisher HTML converter, since I don't need Word or Frame docs in
>addition to the HTML.
If you've got an HTML editor that you like, more power to you. You
are, I take it, working by yourself on this project. But if you're
working on a team, you should allow people to use the text editor,
word processor, or desktop publisher that they're most comfortable
with (i.e., most productive)--provided, of course, that there's an
HTML converter for it. Then--and this is the important step--use make
to automatically update your collection HTML files for you. make isn't
just for programmers. If you can spell out a list of commands to
convert one file type into another, you can use make.
Technical note: My MKS Toolkit (Unix-like) quick on-line help
describes the purpose of make as "maintain program generated and
interdependent files". (Terse? What do expect from something
originally from the Unix world? <g>) Nowhere does it say anything
about programming. With make, you lay down the rules (in a makefile)
and specify the targets, and then make runs around checking file dates
to see what has to be updated. In the simplest case, you have rules
for converting a file in a particular type into another--here, from
.txt, .doc, .wp5, their Mac equivalent, whatever, into .html. If you
want to get fancy, you then write rules for updating particular files
based on a list of files--here, generating index.html from all the
other .html files in the directory, for example. (This requires
programming in awk, sed, perl, and all those other fun languages,
Aside: I'm an editor man myself. HTML is just another set of formatter
tags to define key bindings and formatter macros for. I also know some
high-powered HTML mavens who swear by BBEdit ("Bare Bones Edit") on
the Mac for similar reasons. Why limit yourself to a Ginsu knife HTML
editor when you can edit in your choice of editor in one window and
display the results in your choice of browser in another? <g>
>I need as "pure" HTML as I can get. Therefore, I cannot use Microsoft
>or Netscape HTML-based help development environments because the HTML
>viewer doesn't support their extensions.
If you can draw up a hit list of unsupported tags, you can have make
run the programs (e.g., a member of the grep family) to check for them
and complain back to the writer.
>I am very interested in what people are doing out there in regards to
I haven't done any help files (my client use Windows and DOS-based
help formats), but I'm working on formatter macros for HTML.
Conceptually, it's like writing a printer driver except that instead
of generating the appropriate PCL or Postscript commands for changing
the font size, using bold face, etc., the macro brackets the text with
<H1> and </H2>. Anyone who has ever used "print to disk" under MacOS
of Windows to create Postscript files will get the idea.
One problem that has me flummoxed: paragraph breaks. The formatter's
"We're Unix" attitude (impertinence from a DOS real mode program <g>)
insists that a blank line is enough. Alas, HTML follows the
programming side of Unix when it comes to "white space", not the text
processing side. I therefore have to resort to another step, a tiny
program to fix that one problem when I'd rather do everything in a
|\^/| Maynard Hogg
_|\| |/|_ #306, 4-30-10 Yoga, Setagaya-ku, Tokyo, Japan 158
> < Fax: +81-3-3700-7399
>_./|\._< Internet: maynard -at- gol -dot- com
Unsolicited commercial electronic mail sent to this address will be
proofread at a cost of US$200/hour (half-hour minimum).