RE: [xml-doc] Re: Lack of XML authoring tools?
> -----Original Message-----I think Mike is talking about Frame 6 (and prior), not Frame+SGML or Frame
> From: David Neeley [mailto:dbneeley@...]
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 9:06 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: Michael Smith
> Subject: [xml-doc] Re: Lack of XML authoring tools?
> Mike et. al.:
> Although I quite agree with the thrust of your post,
> you make one assertion that is incorrect:
> "Another big difference: The Frame format (I mean the
> plain, non-SGML/XML one) does not let impose a
> hierachical structure on your content -- to mark it up
> into logical groupings, as XML/SGML-based authoring
> systems do -- it was never designed with structure or
> reusability in mind."
> Since you are obviously unaware, I should mention that
> the current version of Frame (7), there is no longer a
> separate product for SGML/XML as in the past. The
> basic version now includes all the features of Frame
> Additionally, any DTD can be incorporated into the
> compound document Frame refers to as an "EDD"--which
> gives both the type definitions and the formatting
> rules. Adobe claims that as soon as the schema rules
> have solidified they will be incorporated into Frame,
Regarding Frame 7: I'm just starting to evaluate it as an authoring tool. My
experience with XML authoring has mainly been with DocBook using GNU Emacs
in psgmls mode (thanks to help from Mike). Currently I still use Frame 6 for
authoring technical documentation, though.
I'd welcome a discussion about using Frame 7 to do XML (e.g., DocBook)
comments, suggestions for getting started, etc. would be most appreciated.
Manager, Technical Publications
Openwave Systems, Inc.
- I was somehow expecting an example that showed that a
specific presentation was important. (probably my error ...)
Instead, the two run-on paragraphs in the attached message
simply make it clear that without the meta structure, crucial
information has been lost. This should not be a surprise.
Do not confuse a requirement for meta-structure
with a requirement that it be provided in a particular
form or notation.
Traditionally, the structure has been provided implicitly
through use of stylistic conventions in their presentation.
and later deduced by readers (machine and human) through
heuristics (essentially error prone reverse engineering.)
Often it is never formalized but it is always there.
These days we tend to ask the authors to be explicit
so as to avoid this.
Rather than viewing this as separation of content from
presentation, we should be recognizing that
identifying the meta-structure (whether
it be explicitly or implicitly provided by the author)
is an essential step to the meaniningful re-use
(or alternative-display) of some or all of the content.
Even the tools, notations, and mechanisms we use to
do this are not fixed in stone, but good choices
greatly facilitate the process. (It's hard to talk
about a structure if there is no language to describe it...)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Sangrey" <msangrey@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [xml-doc] Separation of content and presentation
> Anyway, the first paragraph is from Diane Blakemore, "Understanding
> Utterances". The second, a better example, I think, is from Dooley and
> Levinsohn, "Analyzing Discourse: A manual of Basic Concepts". I'm not
> sure how Diane "built" her paragraph, but I'll hold off sharing how
> Dooley and Levinsohn did theirs until AFTER you read it.
> Think about what goes on inside your head as you read them.
> John was late. The eight o'clock news was virtually over. The
> situation in the Gulf had not changed. The threat of war had an
> enormous effect on petrol prices. Susan could no longer afford to
> drive to work. At least all that walking was making her fit. She
> would now be able to go on the expedition to the Swiss Alps. It was
> being organized by the university. The university cannot afford to
> run many trips of this kind. The education cuts have necessitated a
> big cut in spending. The Arts Faculty has no money for new computer
> this year.
> And now the second (perhaps you should take a breath to get you head
> back together):
> The baying of the hounds and the screaming of the chickens echoed
> below me, as i quickly scanned the tracks leading towards the
> hole--this was going to be a hectic breakfast. I thought I'd better
> eat a full meal because of the task ahead and the difficulties I
> might encounter. But it was only when I had cooked myself a steak,
> and that piece of shark meat that had been ignored by everyone, that
> I discovered that I could only pick at these tidbits, having, as I
> now recalled, breakfasted, lunched and dined to repletion already.
> Rather than throw the food away, I rang up my husband at work and
> asked him to bring home some colleagues to dine with us.
> Make sense? What did you try to do as you read them?