RE: To SGML or not to SGML (summary)

[Ron Nelson <rnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I thought I'd try to summarize the responces I received.  Sorry it's
taken so long.  There were several responses so I won't try to thank
everyone indiviudally (I'd be sure to miss one), but you know who you are
and your input is valued.

The quick and dirty summary is, this is the right direction go for
single-sourcing and to make use of the capabilities of XML, but be prepared
for some frustrations.  More comments below.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Nelson 
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 10:51 AM
To: 'Framers@FrameUsers.com'; 'Framers@omsys.com'
Subject: To SGML or not to SGML


Hello everybody,

The company I work for is going through a growth spurt and we're trying to
figure out our best and brightest options.  One of the decisions that needs
to be made is whether to continue with the base FrameMaker and upgrade to FM
6 or if it would make sense to migrate to FM6+SGML - so here are my
questions: 

1)  We currently have several - as many as 40 tech writers, some contract
some permanent.  I'm in charge of DTP which is the last to touch the books
for a final clean-up before going to print, et al.  Would we need to upgrade
everyone to +SGML, or can the writers continue to write in the basic FM and
I would apply the SGML DTD to the books at the end of the process?

	Yes - Everyone needs to be writing in a structure environment.  It
can be done the other way, but you're setting yourself up for some problems.

2)  I know the learning curve is steep for SGML, and the process of setting
up a good DTD is long - can anyone give me an idea of what I'd really be
getting myself into?  We produce training manuals that range from 100 to
1000 pages.
	
	The learning curve is steep, but the process can be softened by
hiring a consultant to create the DTDs and help train writers.  Once that's
done maintanence shouldn't be a problem. (besides, I'm a naturally curious
sort who happens to enjoy getting his hands dirty trying to learn new
methods and solve old problems.)

3)  The reason for looking at FM+SGML is to radically improve our
single-sourcing capabilities.  We will produce both print and on-line
materials, as well as translating into several languages, and want to use a
document management system that would allow greater reuse of material at a
section or paragraph level.  Will the addition of SGML really help this
effort or are we just as well off sticking with basic FM and investing in
something like Canterbury?

	For single-sourcing SGML definitely seems to be the way to go.
Marcus Carr and Bill Hall both gave great responses on this which were
posted to the list so I won't repeat them here. (suffice it to say that this
is one of the things that SGML is all about).

4)  I've followed the discussions regarding implementation of Unicode and
native importing of XML - assuming that we will see these in the *near*
future, can I safely assume that it would be well worth the time, effort and
cost to implement FM+SGML?  Can anyone provide me with more specifics on
why?

	Again the general thread through every response has been, yes, it is
worth the time and effort to move to a structured environment and yes,
FM+SGML is still one of the best out there.  It looks like I'll join the
crowd in anxiously waiting and hoping for Unicode and native importing!

Again, thanks again to all who responded,

Ready to make the leap,

Ron Nelson

** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **