Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Adobe: No to Linux

Expand Messages
  • Michael Smith
    Anyone looking for reasons to consider the transition from Frame to real XML-based authoring now has Yet Another Reason to make the move: After recently
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 1, 2000
      Anyone looking for reasons to consider the transition from Frame to
      real XML-based authoring now has Yet Another Reason to make the move:

      After recently running a half-hearted Linux beta program for
      FrameMaker, Adobe (to nobody's surprise, really) finally announced:

      Adobe has determined that it will not, at this time, release a
      commercial version of FrameMaker or FrameMaker+SGML on the Linux
      platform.

      So what? Well, given the current amount of popular enthusiasm behind
      Linux -- similar in many ways to the momentum driving XML -- along
      with the fact that IBM etc. are basically giving away some of their
      best technology (fruits of their R&D budgets) to the Linux community,
      support for Linux is quickly going to become (if it hasn't already) an
      essential part of the definition of the term "cross platform".

      So, I guess that although a pessimist might see Adobe's lack of
      commitment to Linux as just one more indication that Adobe isn't
      sincere about keeping Frame up to date and usable by everybody, an
      optimist (perhaps a vendor of an usable XML-based authoring
      alternative) might see it as just one more opportunity.

      --
      Michael Smith mailto:smith@...
      XML-DOC http://www.xml-doc.org/
    • Elizabeth Zinkann
      Adobe s decision is a little surprising in one way. Acrobat is available on just about every platform (Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, AIX, IRIX, HP-UX, etc.)
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 1, 2000
        Adobe's decision is a little surprising in one way. Acrobat is available
        on
        just about every platform (Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, AIX, IRIX, HP-UX,

        etc.) and is one of the first programs on every computer. Of course, the
        fact
        that the GIMP is often described as a Photoshop-like program may have
        something to do with it.

        Elizabeth Zinkann

        Michael Smith wrote:

        > Anyone looking for reasons to consider the transition from Frame to
        > real XML-based authoring now has Yet Another Reason to make the move:
        >
        > After recently running a half-hearted Linux beta program for
        > FrameMaker, Adobe (to nobody's surprise, really) finally announced:
        >
        > Adobe has determined that it will not, at this time, release a
        > commercial version of FrameMaker or FrameMaker+SGML on the Linux
        > platform.
        >
        > So what? Well, given the current amount of popular enthusiasm behind
        > Linux -- similar in many ways to the momentum driving XML -- along
        > with the fact that IBM etc. are basically giving away some of their
        > best technology (fruits of their R&D budgets) to the Linux community,
        > support for Linux is quickly going to become (if it hasn't already) an
        > essential part of the definition of the term "cross platform".
        >
        > So, I guess that although a pessimist might see Adobe's lack of
        > commitment to Linux as just one more indication that Adobe isn't
        > sincere about keeping Frame up to date and usable by everybody, an
        > optimist (perhaps a vendor of an usable XML-based authoring
        > alternative) might see it as just one more opportunity.
        >
        > --
        > Michael Smith mailto:smith@...
        > XML-DOC http://www.xml-doc.org/
        >
        > -------------------------------------------------------------------
        > Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com
        > Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        > Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@egroups.com
        > Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@egroups.com
        > Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@egroups.com
        > Make changes via Web: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
        > Read archived messages: http://www.egroups.com/messages/xml-doc/
        > -------------------------------------------------------------------
      • David Priest
        ... Or that KWord is often described as like Framemaker. Not that it s anywhere near ready to be used in actual document production, but the movement is
        Message 3 of 8 , Dec 1, 2000
          At 06:59 PM 00-12-01 +0000, you wrote:
          >Of course, the fact
          >that the GIMP is often described as a Photoshop-like program may have
          >something to do with it.

          Or that KWord is often described as "like Framemaker." Not that it's
          anywhere near ready to be used in actual document production, but the
          movement is there.

          It may prove impossible for any commercial product to compete successfully
          on Linux. The open-source coders just love a good challenge. :)

          --
          David Priest -- WritersBlock Technical Communications
          Workplace Documentation, Manuals, Process Improvement
          250 542-5208 www.sfu.ca/~priest
        • Marcus Carr
          ... One might argue that Windows is also an essential part of definition of the term - are you singling out Linux developers for not doing a port to Windows? I
          Message 4 of 8 , Dec 1, 2000
            Michael Smith wrote:

            > Adobe has determined that it will not, at this time, release a
            > commercial version of FrameMaker or FrameMaker+SGML on the Linux
            > platform.
            >
            > So what? Well, given the current amount of popular enthusiasm behind
            > Linux -- similar in many ways to the momentum driving XML -- along
            > with the fact that IBM etc. are basically giving away some of their
            > best technology (fruits of their R&D budgets) to the Linux community,
            > support for Linux is quickly going to become (if it hasn't already) an
            > essential part of the definition of the term "cross platform".

            One might argue that Windows is also an essential part of definition of
            the term - are you singling out Linux developers for not doing a port to
            Windows? I doubt it. It seems to me that this is the new version of
            platform snobbery, supplanting the Mac vs. Windows battles that have kept
            us all so rivetted for the past decade or so.

            > So, I guess that although a pessimist might see Adobe's lack of
            > commitment to Linux as just one more indication that Adobe isn't
            > sincere about keeping Frame up to date and usable by everybody, an
            > optimist (perhaps a vendor of an usable XML-based authoring
            > alternative) might see it as just one more opportunity.

            I can think of at least two good reasons why Frame on Linux wouldn't be
            usable by everybody anyway - first, it would be a commercial product, so
            some people would balk at the cost regardless of the platform. Second, the
            vast majority of users don't get to choose the platform that they work on
            anyway. Linux is A Good Thing, but let's keep it in perspective.


            --
            Regards,

            Marcus Carr email: mrc@...
            ___________________________________________________________________
            Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
            ___________________________________________________________________
            "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
            - Einstein
          • Marcus Carr
            ... Sure, but the discussion was about XML files, not Frame files. Many of us also have XML tools at the office that we can t use at home, due to licencing,
            Message 5 of 8 , Dec 1, 2000
              David Forel wrote:

              > Einstein and Frame are similar -- they are both complex systems that
              > deliver simplicity -- Frame files are Windows/Mac/Unix portable. Many
              > of us have the choice of platform at home.

              Sure, but the discussion was about XML files, not Frame files. Many of us also
              have XML tools at the office that we can't use at home, due to licencing,
              platform, cost, etc. The beauty of the new world is that (for the most part)
              we're not bound by platform or application, as we build the independence into
              the documents. So why is it big news that one application doesn't run on one
              platform?


              --
              Regards,

              Marcus Carr email: mrc@...
              ___________________________________________________________________
              Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
              ___________________________________________________________________
              "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
              - Einstein
            • Nancy (Paisner) Harrison
              I don t find that surprising. Adobe is very mush committed to supporting Acrobat and having it take over the world. It is very much not committed to supporting
              Message 6 of 8 , Dec 1, 2000
                I don't find that surprising. Adobe is very mush committed to supporting
                Acrobat and having it take over the world. It is very much not committed to
                supporting Frame. The point is not that Adobe doesn't recognize Linux as
                strategic; it's that they don't see Frame as strategic.

                Nancy



                At 03:16 AM 12/1/00 -0600, Elizabeth Zinkann wrote:
                >Adobe's decision is a little surprising in one way. Acrobat is available
                >on
                >just about every platform (Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, AIX, IRIX, HP-UX,
                >
                >etc.) and is one of the first programs on every computer. Of course, the
                >fact
                >that the GIMP is often described as a Photoshop-like program may have
                >something to do with it.
                >
                >Elizabeth Zinkann
                >
                >Michael Smith wrote:
                >
                >> Anyone looking for reasons to consider the transition from Frame to
                >> real XML-based authoring now has Yet Another Reason to make the move:
                >>
                >> After recently running a half-hearted Linux beta program for
                >> FrameMaker, Adobe (to nobody's surprise, really) finally announced:
                >>
                >> Adobe has determined that it will not, at this time, release a
                >> commercial version of FrameMaker or FrameMaker+SGML on the Linux
                >> platform.
                >>
                >> So what? Well, given the current amount of popular enthusiasm behind
                >> Linux -- similar in many ways to the momentum driving XML -- along
                >> with the fact that IBM etc. are basically giving away some of their
                >> best technology (fruits of their R&D budgets) to the Linux community,
                >> support for Linux is quickly going to become (if it hasn't already) an
                >> essential part of the definition of the term "cross platform".
                >>
                >> So, I guess that although a pessimist might see Adobe's lack of
                >> commitment to Linux as just one more indication that Adobe isn't
                >> sincere about keeping Frame up to date and usable by everybody, an
                >> optimist (perhaps a vendor of an usable XML-based authoring
                >> alternative) might see it as just one more opportunity.
                >>
                >> --
                >> Michael Smith mailto:smith@...
                >> XML-DOC http://www.xml-doc.org/
                >>
                >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
                >> Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com
                >> Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                >> Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@egroups.com
                >> Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@egroups.com
                >> Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@egroups.com
                >> Make changes via Web: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
                >> Read archived messages: http://www.egroups.com/messages/xml-doc/
                >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
                >
                >
                >-------------------------------------------------------------------
                >Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com
                >Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                >Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@egroups.com
                >Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@egroups.com
                >Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@egroups.com
                >Make changes via Web: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
                >Read archived messages: http://www.egroups.com/messages/xml-doc/
                >-------------------------------------------------------------------


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ed Blachman
                ... to ... As an ex-Interleafer... I don t think the issue is whether Frame is strategic . I think it s that Adobe s become a reasonably successful company by
                Message 7 of 8 , Dec 1, 2000
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Nancy (Paisner) Harrison [mailto:nancyh@...]
                  > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:57 PM
                  > To: xml-doc@egroups.com
                  > Cc: xml-doc@egroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [xml-doc] Adobe: No to Linux
                  >
                  > I don't find that surprising. Adobe is very mush committed to supporting
                  > Acrobat and having it take over the world. It is very much not committed
                  to
                  > supporting Frame. The point is not that Adobe doesn't recognize Linux as
                  > strategic; it's that they don't see Frame as strategic.

                  As an ex-Interleafer...

                  I don't think the issue is whether Frame is "strategic". I think it's that
                  Adobe's become a reasonably successful company by paying good and close
                  attention to their markets. Frame products have features that make them very
                  useful to people doing serious technical documentation, but those features
                  are overkill for most ordinary people. Sensibly, they market the product
                  accordingly -- including charging serious bucks for it. I'm sure that if
                  their corporate customers and prospects were telling them that they were
                  moving their docfolks to Linux desktops, they'd follow through on that port
                  -- and that it would be silly and wasteful for them to do so otherwise.

                  (The only thing I find surprising is that they got the product all the way
                  to beta without figuring that out. That's the kind of ridiculous stunt I saw
                  too often at Interleaf....)

                  Ed Blachman
                • MacDonald, Stephen
                  We are talking XML here, right? If you must have Frame, choose a platform where it is implemented. If you must have Linux, there are plenty of good choices
                  Message 8 of 8 , Dec 4, 2000
                    We are talking XML here, right? If you must have Frame, choose a platform
                    where it is implemented. If you must have Linux, there are plenty of good
                    choices for working on XML files.

                    IMO, the most appealing characteristic of XML is that I can choose from
                    literally dozens of editors. I can work in an organization that uses
                    Frame+SGML on Windows, but use Emacs on Linux if I want to. The authoring
                    tools wars are finally moot. Can we finally let them die a peaceful death?

                    Steve MacDonald
                    Aspect Communications, Inc.






                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: xml-doc@egroups.com [mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com]
                    > Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 8:21 AM
                    > To: xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > Subject: [xml-doc] Digest Number 121
                    >
                    >
                    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    > Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@egroups.com
                    > Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@egroups.com
                    > Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@egroups.com
                    > Make changes via Web: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
                    > Read archived messages: http://www.egroups.com/messages/xml-doc/
                    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > --------------------------------------------------------------
                    > ----------
                    >
                    > There are 12 messages in this issue.
                    >
                    > Topics in this digest:
                    >
                    > 1. Re: delaying xml parsing untill xsl arrives...A solution?
                    > From: dherzner@...
                    > 2. Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    > From: David Priest <priest@...>
                    > 3. RE: Re: delaying xml parsing untill xsl arrives...A solution?
                    > From: "Gabi Bucataru" <gabi@...>
                    > 4. Re: Pros and Cons of Docbook SGML vs Docbook XML?
                    > From: Gene Hirayama <yujigh@...>
                    > 5. RE: Pros and Cons of Docbook SGML vs Docbook XML?
                    > From: David Cramer <dcramer@...>
                    > 6. Re: DocBook token
                    > From: Gene Hirayama <yujigh@...>
                    > 7. Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    > From: Marcus Carr <mrc@...>
                    > 8. Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    > From: "David Forel"<David.Forel@...>
                    > 9. Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    > From: Marcus Carr <mrc@...>
                    > 10. Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    > From: "Nancy (Paisner) Harrison" <nancyh@...>
                    > 11. Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    > From: "Nancy (Paisner) Harrison" <nancyh@...>
                    > 12. RE: Adobe: No to Linux
                    > From: Ed Blachman <edb@...>
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 1
                    > Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 19:10:30 -0000
                    > From: dherzner@...
                    > Subject: Re: delaying xml parsing untill xsl arrives...A solution?
                    >
                    > gabi, are you setting the asynch property of the document object to
                    > false?
                    >
                    > --- In xml-doc@egroups.com, "Gabi Bucataru" <gabi@p...> wrote:
                    > > Hi,
                    > >
                    > > There is an interesting fenomen that occurs when I access an xml
                    > (plus xsl)
                    > > file...
                    > >
                    > > The scenario:
                    > > The user sends a request to the server where a servlet pulls out
                    > the right
                    > > data from the database and sends it back to the user as an xml that
                    > have a
                    > > reference to a stylesheet. Take a look at
                    > > http://www.pattersongray.com/webas^tkvbw (you'll probably get a
                    > blank page
                    > > or some sort of an parser error). Remember, it works for me...
                    > >
                    > > The simptom:
                    > > Now there are times when the xml comes in fine but sometimes I get
                    > a blank
                    > > page or an parser error. Seems like the parser starts processing
                    > the xml
                    > > file before the style sheet arrives.
                    > > When I access the xml/xsl from our office , there are no problems
                    > at all.
                    > >
                    > > The discovery:
                    > > I know this sounds weird to some of you, but I discovered this
                    > problem while
                    > > building a html databind to a xml file. I had some combo boxes that
                    > used a
                    > > vbscript to populate them with the data from the xml file. Same
                    > deal, worked
                    > > fine in our office, but gave me an error when viewing it from the
                    > server
                    > > (http://pattersongray.com/pga/demographics.htm). The error said:
                    > >
                    > > "the data necessary to complete this operation [the vb script for
                    > the combo
                    > > boxes] is not YET available"
                    > >
                    > > I inserted the xml in the html (instead of having it referenced)
                    > > and...surprise! -- It worked
                    > (http://pattersongray.com/pga/fusion.htm).
                    > > Seems like the farther the user is from the server, the greater the
                    > error
                    > > chance is...
                    > >
                    > > The QUESTION (finally):
                    > > 1. Is there a way of delaying the parsing of an xml file until the
                    > > referenced stylesheet arrives to the user's machine? OR
                    > > 2. Can I insert the xsl in the xml?
                    > >
                    > > I appreciate your patience to read through and giving your oppinion.
                    > >
                    > > Regards,
                    > > Gabi.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 2
                    > Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 11:38:25 -0800
                    > From: David Priest <priest@...>
                    > Subject: Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    >
                    > At 06:59 PM 00-12-01 +0000, you wrote:
                    > >Of course, the fact
                    > >that the GIMP is often described as a Photoshop-like program may have
                    > >something to do with it.
                    >
                    > Or that KWord is often described as "like Framemaker." Not that it's
                    > anywhere near ready to be used in actual document production, but the
                    > movement is there.
                    >
                    > It may prove impossible for any commercial product to compete
                    > successfully
                    > on Linux. The open-source coders just love a good challenge. :)
                    >
                    > --
                    > David Priest -- WritersBlock Technical Communications
                    > Workplace Documentation, Manuals, Process Improvement
                    > 250 542-5208 www.sfu.ca/~priest
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 3
                    > Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:39:30 -0600
                    > From: "Gabi Bucataru" <gabi@...>
                    > Subject: RE: Re: delaying xml parsing untill xsl arrives...A solution?
                    >
                    > Yes, here is the code:
                    >
                    > <html>
                    > <body>
                    > <script language="javascript" for="window" event="onload">
                    > // Load XML
                    > var xml = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLDOM")
                    > xml.async = false
                    > xml.load("report.xml")
                    >
                    > // Load the XSL
                    > var xsl = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLDOM")
                    > xsl.async = false
                    > xsl.load("report.xsl")
                    >
                    > // Transform
                    > document.write(xml.transformNode(xsl))
                    > </script>
                    >
                    > </body>
                    > </html>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: dherzner@... [mailto:dherzner@...]
                    > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 1:11 PM
                    > To: xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > Subject: [xml-doc] Re: delaying xml parsing untill xsl arrives...A
                    > solution?
                    >
                    >
                    > gabi, are you setting the asynch property of the document object to
                    > false?
                    >
                    > --- In xml-doc@egroups.com, "Gabi Bucataru" <gabi@p...> wrote:
                    > > Hi,
                    > >
                    > > There is an interesting fenomen that occurs when I access an xml
                    > (plus xsl)
                    > > file...
                    > >
                    > > The scenario:
                    > > The user sends a request to the server where a servlet pulls out
                    > the right
                    > > data from the database and sends it back to the user as an xml that
                    > have a
                    > > reference to a stylesheet. Take a look at
                    > > http://www.pattersongray.com/webas^tkvbw (you'll probably get a
                    > blank page
                    > > or some sort of an parser error). Remember, it works for me...
                    > >
                    > > The simptom:
                    > > Now there are times when the xml comes in fine but sometimes I get
                    > a blank
                    > > page or an parser error. Seems like the parser starts processing
                    > the xml
                    > > file before the style sheet arrives.
                    > > When I access the xml/xsl from our office , there are no problems
                    > at all.
                    > >
                    > > The discovery:
                    > > I know this sounds weird to some of you, but I discovered this
                    > problem while
                    > > building a html databind to a xml file. I had some combo boxes that
                    > used a
                    > > vbscript to populate them with the data from the xml file. Same
                    > deal, worked
                    > > fine in our office, but gave me an error when viewing it from the
                    > server
                    > > (http://pattersongray.com/pga/demographics.htm). The error said:
                    > >
                    > > "the data necessary to complete this operation [the vb script for
                    > the combo
                    > > boxes] is not YET available"
                    > >
                    > > I inserted the xml in the html (instead of having it referenced)
                    > > and...surprise! -- It worked
                    > (http://pattersongray.com/pga/fusion.htm).
                    > > Seems like the farther the user is from the server, the greater the
                    > error
                    > > chance is...
                    > >
                    > > The QUESTION (finally):
                    > > 1. Is there a way of delaying the parsing of an xml file until the
                    > > referenced stylesheet arrives to the user's machine? OR
                    > > 2. Can I insert the xsl in the xml?
                    > >
                    > > I appreciate your patience to read through and giving your oppinion.
                    > >
                    > > Regards,
                    > > Gabi.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    > Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@egroups.com
                    > Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@egroups.com
                    > Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@egroups.com
                    > Make changes via Web: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
                    > Read archived messages: http://www.egroups.com/messages/xml-doc/
                    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 4
                    > Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:08:31 -0800 (PST)
                    > From: Gene Hirayama <yujigh@...>
                    > Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of Docbook SGML vs Docbook XML?
                    >
                    > Thank you for your input. Can you give me the urls for
                    > the DocBook and DocBook-apps list?
                    >
                    > Gene
                    >
                    >
                    > --- Michael Smith <smith@...> wrote:
                    > > yujigh@... writes:
                    > >
                    > > > I'm new to Docbook, but what are the pros and cons
                    > > of using Docbook
                    > > > SGML vs the pros and cons of Docbook XML?
                    > > >
                    > > > Our system has FrameMaker+SGML with the Docbook
                    > > SGML, but we're
                    > > > trying to determine any present and future
                    > > implications of using
                    > > > Docbook SGML over Docbook XML.
                    > >
                    > > This is another good question to post to either the
                    > > docbook or
                    > > docbook-apps list.
                    > >
                    > > As far as future implications of using DocBook SGML
                    > > over XML goes, one
                    > > thing to keep in mind is that the next major release
                    > > (5.0) of DocBook
                    > > will be XML-compliant, not backward-compatible with
                    > > the SGML version.
                    > >
                    > > Maybe going with the XML version now also gives you
                    > > more flexibility.
                    > > That is, there are a wider range of XML tools
                    > > available, many of them
                    > > free/open-source -- standalone XML parsers,
                    > > libraries for various
                    > > programming languages, XSL engines, etc.
                    > >
                    > > And as far as development of new tools goes, the
                    > > current momentum is
                    > > of course behind XML tools.
                    > >
                    > > Also, DocBook will eventually be available also in
                    > > XML schema form (an
                    > > alpha version is already available[1]). If you think
                    > > you may end up
                    > > wanting the additional features that the schema
                    > > syntax can provide,
                    > > that may be another good reason for getting familiar
                    > > with the current
                    > > XML version instead of the SGML version -- to make
                    > > the DTD-to-schema
                    > > transition more easily.
                    > >
                    > > --Mike Smith
                    > >
                    > > [1] http://www.egroups.com/message/xml-doc/564
                    > >
                    > > --
                    > > Michael Smith mailto:smith@...
                    > > XML-DOC http://www.xml-doc.org/
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > > Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > > Unsubscribe:
                    > > mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    > > Switch to digest:
                    > > mailto:xml-doc-digest@egroups.com
                    > > Put mail on hold:
                    > > mailto:xml-doc-nomail@egroups.com
                    > > Contact adminstrator:
                    > > mailto:xml-doc-owner@egroups.com
                    > > Make changes via Web:
                    > > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
                    > > Read archived messages:
                    > > http://www.egroups.com/messages/xml-doc/
                    > >
                    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > __________________________________________________
                    > Do You Yahoo!?
                    > Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
                    > http://shopping.yahoo.com/
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 5
                    > Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:10:21 -0600
                    > From: David Cramer <dcramer@...>
                    > Subject: RE: Pros and Cons of Docbook SGML vs Docbook XML?
                    >
                    > http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/mailinglist/index.html
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: Gene Hirayama [mailto:yujigh@...]
                    > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 2:09 PM
                    > To: xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > Subject: Re: [xml-doc] Pros and Cons of Docbook SGML vs Docbook XML?
                    >
                    >
                    > Thank you for your input. Can you give me the urls for
                    > the DocBook and DocBook-apps list?
                    >
                    > Gene
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 6
                    > Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:14:40 -0800 (PST)
                    > From: Gene Hirayama <yujigh@...>
                    > Subject: Re: DocBook token
                    >
                    > Thanks again for your help. I just got my copy today!
                    >
                    >
                    > --- Michael Smith <smith@...> wrote:
                    > > yujigh@... writes:
                    > >
                    > > > Anyone know how use the DocBook "token" tag?
                    > >
                    > > You may already know this, but for the benefit of
                    > > others on the list
                    > > who don't, the complete text of "DocBook: The
                    > > Definitive Guide" (which
                    > > includes an element reference section) is available
                    > > online at:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/docbook/chapter/book/docbook.html
                    > >
                    > > The specific information on the "token" element is
                    > > at:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/docbook/chapter/book/token.html
                    > >
                    > > To quote that page:
                    > >
                    > > A Token identifies a unit of information. Usually,
                    > > "tokens" are the
                    > > result of some processing pass that has performed
                    > > lexical analysis
                    > > and divided a data set into the smallest units of
                    > > information used
                    > > for subsequent processing.
                    > >
                    > > Exactly what constitutes a token varies by
                    > > context.
                    > >
                    > > Example:
                    > >
                    > > <!DOCTYPE para PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook
                    > > V3.1//EN">
                    > > <para>
                    > > In parsing, line ends are turned into the
                    > > <token>CRLF</token>, all other
                    > > whitespace becomes <token>WHITESP</token>.
                    > > </para>
                    > >
                    > > If you want more specifics on how to use it, the
                    > > best place to get an
                    > > answer is on either the docbook or docbook-apps
                    > > mailing list:
                    > >
                    > > http://www.docbook.org/mailinglist/index.html
                    > >
                    > > --
                    > > Michael Smith mailto:smith@...
                    > > XML-DOC http://www.xml-doc.org/
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > > Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > > Unsubscribe:
                    > > mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    > > Switch to digest:
                    > > mailto:xml-doc-digest@egroups.com
                    > > Put mail on hold:
                    > > mailto:xml-doc-nomail@egroups.com
                    > > Contact adminstrator:
                    > > mailto:xml-doc-owner@egroups.com
                    > > Make changes via Web:
                    > > http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
                    > > Read archived messages:
                    > > http://www.egroups.com/messages/xml-doc/
                    > >
                    > -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > __________________________________________________
                    > Do You Yahoo!?
                    > Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
                    > http://shopping.yahoo.com/
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 7
                    > Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:06:21 +1100
                    > From: Marcus Carr <mrc@...>
                    > Subject: Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    >
                    >
                    > Michael Smith wrote:
                    >
                    > > Adobe has determined that it will not, at this time, release a
                    > > commercial version of FrameMaker or FrameMaker+SGML on the Linux
                    > > platform.
                    > >
                    > > So what? Well, given the current amount of popular enthusiasm behind
                    > > Linux -- similar in many ways to the momentum driving XML -- along
                    > > with the fact that IBM etc. are basically giving away some of their
                    > > best technology (fruits of their R&D budgets) to the Linux
                    > community,
                    > > support for Linux is quickly going to become (if it hasn't
                    > already) an
                    > > essential part of the definition of the term "cross platform".
                    >
                    > One might argue that Windows is also an essential part of
                    > definition of
                    > the term - are you singling out Linux developers for not
                    > doing a port to
                    > Windows? I doubt it. It seems to me that this is the new version of
                    > platform snobbery, supplanting the Mac vs. Windows battles
                    > that have kept
                    > us all so rivetted for the past decade or so.
                    >
                    > > So, I guess that although a pessimist might see Adobe's lack of
                    > > commitment to Linux as just one more indication that Adobe isn't
                    > > sincere about keeping Frame up to date and usable by everybody, an
                    > > optimist (perhaps a vendor of an usable XML-based authoring
                    > > alternative) might see it as just one more opportunity.
                    >
                    > I can think of at least two good reasons why Frame on Linux
                    > wouldn't be
                    > usable by everybody anyway - first, it would be a commercial
                    > product, so
                    > some people would balk at the cost regardless of the
                    > platform. Second, the
                    > vast majority of users don't get to choose the platform that
                    > they work on
                    > anyway. Linux is A Good Thing, but let's keep it in perspective.
                    >
                    >
                    > --
                    > Regards,
                    >
                    > Marcus Carr email: mrc@...
                    > ___________________________________________________________________
                    > Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
                    > ___________________________________________________________________
                    > "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
                    > - Einstein
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 8
                    > Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:31:32 -0600
                    > From: "David Forel"<David.Forel@...>
                    > Subject: Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    >
                    > Marcus,
                    >
                    > Einstein and Frame are similar -- they are both complex systems that
                    > deliver simplicity -- Frame files are Windows/Mac/Unix portable. Many
                    > of us have the choice of platform at home. I think that,
                    > this one time,
                    > your perspective is hampered by the ugly software that we are
                    > forced to
                    > use. Linux is probably not THE solution, but it is driving
                    > new solutions.
                    >
                    > David Forel
                    > PGS Data Processing
                    > <david.forel@...>
                    > ----------------------------------------------------
                    > "Nothing levels a playing field like a better idea."
                    >
                    > Stanley I. Mason, Jr.
                    > The Freeman, July 1997
                    > The Foundation for Economic Education
                    > ----------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    > Michael Smith wrote:
                    >
                    > > Adobe has determined that it will not, at this time, release a
                    > > commercial version of FrameMaker or FrameMaker+SGML on the Linux
                    > > platform.
                    > >
                    > > So what? Well, given the current amount of popular enthusiasm behind
                    > > Linux -- similar in many ways to the momentum driving XML -- along
                    > > with the fact that IBM etc. are basically giving away some of their
                    > > best technology (fruits of their R&D budgets) to the Linux
                    > community,
                    > > support for Linux is quickly going to become (if it hasn't
                    > already) an
                    > > essential part of the definition of the term "cross platform".
                    >
                    > One might argue that Windows is also an essential part of
                    > definition of
                    > the term - are you singling out Linux developers for not
                    > doing a port to
                    > Windows? I doubt it. It seems to me that this is the new version of
                    > platform snobbery, supplanting the Mac vs. Windows battles
                    > that have kept
                    > us all so rivetted for the past decade or so.
                    >
                    > > So, I guess that although a pessimist might see Adobe's lack of
                    > > commitment to Linux as just one more indication that Adobe isn't
                    > > sincere about keeping Frame up to date and usable by everybody, an
                    > > optimist (perhaps a vendor of an usable XML-based authoring
                    > > alternative) might see it as just one more opportunity.
                    >
                    > I can think of at least two good reasons why Frame on Linux
                    > wouldn't be
                    > usable by everybody anyway - first, it would be a commercial
                    > product, so
                    > some people would balk at the cost regardless of the
                    > platform. Second, the
                    > vast majority of users don't get to choose the platform that
                    > they work on
                    > anyway. Linux is A Good Thing, but let's keep it in perspective.
                    >
                    > --
                    > Regards,
                    >
                    > Marcus Carr email: mrc@...
                    > ___________________________________________________________________
                    > Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
                    > ___________________________________________________________________
                    > "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
                    > - Einstein
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 9
                    > Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 09:47:54 +1100
                    > From: Marcus Carr <mrc@...>
                    > Subject: Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    >
                    >
                    > David Forel wrote:
                    >
                    > > Einstein and Frame are similar -- they are both complex systems that
                    > > deliver simplicity -- Frame files are Windows/Mac/Unix
                    > portable. Many
                    > > of us have the choice of platform at home.
                    >
                    > Sure, but the discussion was about XML files, not Frame
                    > files. Many of us also
                    > have XML tools at the office that we can't use at home, due
                    > to licencing,
                    > platform, cost, etc. The beauty of the new world is that (for
                    > the most part)
                    > we're not bound by platform or application, as we build the
                    > independence into
                    > the documents. So why is it big news that one application
                    > doesn't run on one
                    > platform?
                    >
                    >
                    > --
                    > Regards,
                    >
                    > Marcus Carr email: mrc@...
                    > ___________________________________________________________________
                    > Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
                    > ___________________________________________________________________
                    > "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
                    > - Einstein
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 10
                    > Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 17:56:49 -0500
                    > From: "Nancy (Paisner) Harrison" <nancyh@...>
                    > Subject: Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    >
                    >
                    > I don't find that surprising. Adobe is very mush committed to
                    > supporting
                    > Acrobat and having it take over the world. It is very much
                    > not committed to
                    > supporting Frame. The point is not that Adobe doesn't
                    > recognize Linux as
                    > strategic; it's that they don't see Frame as strategic.
                    >
                    > Nancy
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > At 03:16 AM 12/1/00 -0600, Elizabeth Zinkann wrote:
                    > >Adobe's decision is a little surprising in one way. Acrobat
                    > is available
                    > >on
                    > >just about every platform (Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris,
                    > AIX, IRIX, HP-UX,
                    > >
                    > >etc.) and is one of the first programs on every computer.
                    > Of course, the
                    > >fact
                    > >that the GIMP is often described as a Photoshop-like program may have
                    > >something to do with it.
                    > >
                    > >Elizabeth Zinkann
                    > >
                    > >Michael Smith wrote:
                    > >
                    > >> Anyone looking for reasons to consider the transition from Frame to
                    > >> real XML-based authoring now has Yet Another Reason to
                    > make the move:
                    > >>
                    > >> After recently running a half-hearted Linux beta program for
                    > >> FrameMaker, Adobe (to nobody's surprise, really) finally announced:
                    > >>
                    > >> Adobe has determined that it will not, at this time, release a
                    > >> commercial version of FrameMaker or FrameMaker+SGML on the Linux
                    > >> platform.
                    > >>
                    > >> So what? Well, given the current amount of popular
                    > enthusiasm behind
                    > >> Linux -- similar in many ways to the momentum driving XML -- along
                    > >> with the fact that IBM etc. are basically giving away some of their
                    > >> best technology (fruits of their R&D budgets) to the Linux
                    > community,
                    > >> support for Linux is quickly going to become (if it hasn't
                    > already) an
                    > >> essential part of the definition of the term "cross platform".
                    > >>
                    > >> So, I guess that although a pessimist might see Adobe's lack of
                    > >> commitment to Linux as just one more indication that Adobe isn't
                    > >> sincere about keeping Frame up to date and usable by everybody, an
                    > >> optimist (perhaps a vendor of an usable XML-based authoring
                    > >> alternative) might see it as just one more opportunity.
                    > >>
                    > >> --
                    > >> Michael Smith mailto:smith@...
                    > >> XML-DOC http://www.xml-doc.org/
                    > >>
                    > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >> Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > >> Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    > >> Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@egroups.com
                    > >> Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@egroups.com
                    > >> Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@egroups.com
                    > >> Make changes via Web: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
                    > >> Read archived messages: http://www.egroups.com/messages/xml-doc/
                    > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > >Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    > >Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@egroups.com
                    > >Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@egroups.com
                    > >Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@egroups.com
                    > >Make changes via Web: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
                    > >Read archived messages: http://www.egroups.com/messages/xml-doc/
                    > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 11
                    > Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 17:56:49 -0500
                    > From: "Nancy (Paisner) Harrison" <nancyh@...>
                    > Subject: Re: Adobe: No to Linux
                    >
                    >
                    > I don't find that surprising. Adobe is very mush committed to
                    > supporting
                    > Acrobat and having it take over the world. It is very much
                    > not committed to
                    > supporting Frame. The point is not that Adobe doesn't
                    > recognize Linux as
                    > strategic; it's that they don't see Frame as strategic.
                    >
                    > Nancy
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > At 03:16 AM 12/1/00 -0600, Elizabeth Zinkann wrote:
                    > >Adobe's decision is a little surprising in one way. Acrobat
                    > is available
                    > >on
                    > >just about every platform (Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris,
                    > AIX, IRIX, HP-UX,
                    > >
                    > >etc.) and is one of the first programs on every computer.
                    > Of course, the
                    > >fact
                    > >that the GIMP is often described as a Photoshop-like program may have
                    > >something to do with it.
                    > >
                    > >Elizabeth Zinkann
                    > >
                    > >Michael Smith wrote:
                    > >
                    > >> Anyone looking for reasons to consider the transition from Frame to
                    > >> real XML-based authoring now has Yet Another Reason to
                    > make the move:
                    > >>
                    > >> After recently running a half-hearted Linux beta program for
                    > >> FrameMaker, Adobe (to nobody's surprise, really) finally announced:
                    > >>
                    > >> Adobe has determined that it will not, at this time, release a
                    > >> commercial version of FrameMaker or FrameMaker+SGML on the Linux
                    > >> platform.
                    > >>
                    > >> So what? Well, given the current amount of popular
                    > enthusiasm behind
                    > >> Linux -- similar in many ways to the momentum driving XML -- along
                    > >> with the fact that IBM etc. are basically giving away some of their
                    > >> best technology (fruits of their R&D budgets) to the Linux
                    > community,
                    > >> support for Linux is quickly going to become (if it hasn't
                    > already) an
                    > >> essential part of the definition of the term "cross platform".
                    > >>
                    > >> So, I guess that although a pessimist might see Adobe's lack of
                    > >> commitment to Linux as just one more indication that Adobe isn't
                    > >> sincere about keeping Frame up to date and usable by everybody, an
                    > >> optimist (perhaps a vendor of an usable XML-based authoring
                    > >> alternative) might see it as just one more opportunity.
                    > >>
                    > >> --
                    > >> Michael Smith mailto:smith@...
                    > >> XML-DOC http://www.xml-doc.org/
                    > >>
                    > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >> Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > >> Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    > >> Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@egroups.com
                    > >> Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@egroups.com
                    > >> Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@egroups.com
                    > >> Make changes via Web: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
                    > >> Read archived messages: http://www.egroups.com/messages/xml-doc/
                    > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > >Post a message: mailto:xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > >Unsubscribe: mailto:xml-doc-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                    > >Switch to digest: mailto:xml-doc-digest@egroups.com
                    > >Put mail on hold: mailto:xml-doc-nomail@egroups.com
                    > >Contact adminstrator: mailto:xml-doc-owner@egroups.com
                    > >Make changes via Web: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xml-doc/
                    > >Read archived messages: http://www.egroups.com/messages/xml-doc/
                    > >-------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    > Message: 12
                    > Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:05:21 -0500
                    > From: Ed Blachman <edb@...>
                    > Subject: RE: Adobe: No to Linux
                    >
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: Nancy (Paisner) Harrison [mailto:nancyh@...]
                    > > Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:57 PM
                    > > To: xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > > Cc: xml-doc@egroups.com
                    > > Subject: Re: [xml-doc] Adobe: No to Linux
                    > >
                    > > I don't find that surprising. Adobe is very mush committed
                    > to supporting
                    > > Acrobat and having it take over the world. It is very much
                    > not committed
                    > to
                    > > supporting Frame. The point is not that Adobe doesn't
                    > recognize Linux as
                    > > strategic; it's that they don't see Frame as strategic.
                    >
                    > As an ex-Interleafer...
                    >
                    > I don't think the issue is whether Frame is "strategic". I
                    > think it's that
                    > Adobe's become a reasonably successful company by paying good
                    > and close
                    > attention to their markets. Frame products have features that
                    > make them very
                    > useful to people doing serious technical documentation, but
                    > those features
                    > are overkill for most ordinary people. Sensibly, they market
                    > the product
                    > accordingly -- including charging serious bucks for it. I'm
                    > sure that if
                    > their corporate customers and prospects were telling them
                    > that they were
                    > moving their docfolks to Linux desktops, they'd follow
                    > through on that port
                    > -- and that it would be silly and wasteful for them to do so
                    > otherwise.
                    >
                    > (The only thing I find surprising is that they got the
                    > product all the way
                    > to beta without figuring that out. That's the kind of
                    > ridiculous stunt I saw
                    > too often at Interleaf....)
                    >
                    > Ed Blachman
                    >
                    >
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    > ______________________________________________________________
                    > __________
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.