RE: [xml-doc] XML authoring tools
- From the discussion, it would seem that a tool like XMetal would do what
you are all asking for.
I haven't used it but have looked into it. It is supposed to have a
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf
Of Barbara Jane
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: [xml-doc] XML authoring tools
I'm in the same position as cdfj. I am using a non-wysiwyg editor, but
if I want help from additional documenters I am going to need to
implement something else. I am totally put off by Framemaker and the
amount of time it takes to go to straight XML which is critical for our
Is InDesign any better?
Mark Barratt wrote:
> cdfj wrote:
> > With the sad demise of FrameMaker (OK, they're aiming for a new
> > release in 2007, but after the pathetic lack of ambition shown in
> > the v7 releases, it's hard to believe it'll be worth waiting for),
> > FrameMaker cannot be considered a future-safe option.
> I think you have got it completely wrong, Charles. I believe that
> has seen the light about Frame (a little late, but maybe not too late)<http://www.thecontentwrangler.com/>
> and is devoting significant resources to taking it forward.
> The DITA application pack is just one strand of evidence for this -
> there's more at trade shows, in promotional activity. There's also an
> interesting interview on Scott Abel's site
http://www.thecontentwrangler.com/> > with the Frame evangelist. And
> guys I have met in the last few months have seemed excited (but<mailto:markb%40textmatters.com>
> tight-lipped) about Frame's future.
> Mark Barratt
> Text Matters
> Information design: we help explain things using
> language | design | systems | process improvement
> phone +44 (0)118 986 8313 email markb@...
> <mailto:markb%40textmatters.com><http://www.textmatters.com <http://www.textmatters.com> >
> web http://www.textmatters.com <http://www.textmatters.com>
The information contained in this message may be privileged
and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee
or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any reproduction,
dissemination or distribution of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please notify us immediately by replying to the message and
deleting it from your computer. Thank you. Tellabs
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- Thanks much to everyone for sharing their
experiences. As it happens, the evaluation
version of the XMetal Authoring version I
have is 5.0.
Someone suggested that the problem occurs in
the Authoring version, but not the Developer
version. Unless the problem is restricted to
the evaluation copy, they may be right.
Dave Holmes wrote:
> Hi Eric,
> I just wanted to echo Yas's sentiments about upgrading to version 5.0.
> I am using xMetal 4.6 Dita Edition for Dita authoring, and while I do
> like the xMetal tool, the Dita plugin that came with 4.6 has a few
> annoying little bugs that really get in the way. Most of which have been
> fixed in full or in part for version 5.
> If you are evaluating the product, use version 5.0. Also, definitely
> evaluate it with a complete authoring workflow. The most annoying bugs
> (in my opinion) are not immediately obvious if you just open the editor
> and make a few small additions here or there.
> That said, every app seems to have its bugs (last I checked, Framemaker
> still didn't support the scroll wheel on my mouse). I think that the
> pros of using xMetal outweigh the cons - it's overall a good tool and
> I'm sure the minor nuisances will be fixed in due time.
> - Dave
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf
> Of Eric Armstrong
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 4:42 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [xml-doc] Re: XML authoring tools
> Hmmm. Someone in the marketing division needs their
> head examined, then. I downloaded the eval, and while
> I was very impressed with its overall usability, that
> kind of formatting snafu could easily have led me to
> decide against it.
> Yas Etessam wrote:
>> Hi Ryan and Eric:
>> It sounds like Eric is using the XMetaL DITA Edition which doesn't add
>> any white-space (newline characters etc) to the documents.
>> The new version XMetaL 5.0 DITA Edition comes with minimal
>> configuration. That will make the XML more legible in Plain Text view
>> by adding some newline characters around the block elements.
>> Upgrade and that problem will go away.
>> Best regards,
>> Yas Etessam
>> P.S. Thanks for your useful feedback about Developer/configuration.
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:xml-doc%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:email@example.com <mailto:xml-doc%40yahoogroups.com> ]
>> On Behalf Of Ryan Germann
>> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 8:29 AM
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:xml-doc%40yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: [xml-doc] Re: XML authoring tools
>> --- In email@example.com <mailto:xml-doc%40yahoogroups.com>
>> <mailto:xml-doc%40yahoogroups.com> , Eric Armstrong
>>> I have "automated indenting" set, but the only tags
>>> that are indented are those outside of the <conbody>.
>>> Everything inside the <conbody> is not only unindented,
>>> it's not even on a separate line. So all of the content
>>> is one long, uninterrupted line.
>>> That's pretty horrible for people who might want to use
>>> JEdit or emacs to make a minor change. Am I missing
>>> something int the configuration?
>> Hi Eric; which version of XMetaL are you using? XMetaL 3.1 had
>> most of
>> the basic configuration capabilities built-in, where for every
>> element, you could specify whether the source text had space
>> preserved, whether each individual tag had a blank line or new
>> before and / or after etc. Very good control... also, it would
>> enforce pretty-printing when a tag did NOT have any space
>> itself and the preceeding tag (in order to prevent introduction
>> unwanted whitespace between elements).
>> Of course, bringing in ugly-printed markup and having XMetaL
>> have its
>> way with it may introduce problems... but a properly tuned
>> pretty-print configuration should be very helpful in CREATING
>> that does not go awry.
>> If you're using XMetaL 4.x you may have to purchase the
>> Edition to get GUIs to control all of this... but the XMetaL 3.x
>> configuration files are compatible... so if you have a 3.X CD,
>> it and use it for tweaking configurations.
>> I hope JustSystem has the sense to reintegrate these most basic
>> configuration capabilities and leave the scriptable / plugin
>> stuff to
>> Visual Studio... not being able to specify whether a specific
>> in a specific DTD is an image, without a "Developer Edition"?
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yahoo! Groups Links