[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[New search]
To: Marcus Carr <mrc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, framers@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: FrameMaker 5.5.6 and XML experience?
From: Dan Emory <danemory@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1998 09:12:28 -0700 (MST)
Sender: owner-framers@xxxxxxxxx
At 12:15 PM 10/25/98 +1100, Marcus Carr wrote: >Dan Emory wrote: > >> The HTML-like solution offerred in FM5.5.6 will be a loser. The >> question is what about the "real" XML implementation in FM+SGML 5.5.6, >> >> which, if it was done right, should avoid all those shortcomings? Has >> anyone >> explored it yet? Is it viable? > >As I mentioned in my last post related to Frame's XML ability, I haven't >had much of a chance to play with it, but what I saw looked pretty good. ************************************************************************* I was talking about the fact that, as many have stated in postings to the list, Frame's HTML converter leaves much to be desired, and presumably those same shortcomings would exist (and perhaps even be compounded) when attempting to convert unstructured Frame documents to XML using the tag mapping approach. Most people who are serious about HTML have gone to Quadralay Webwork Publisher because it is far superior to FrameMaker's. ************************************************************************ >I'd be interested to hear what you mean by "real" and what shortcomings >you're aware of. ************************************************************************ A "real" solution should be the one offered by FM+SGML 5.5.6, which should allow us to create structured SGML/XML documents that can be exported as conformant XML without any necessity for the kind of tag mapping required for converting unstructured documents. Producing XML-conformant output from a structured document is certainly more "real" than producing it from unstructured documents. Also, how could the HTML-like conversion of unstructured documents deal with attributes? If it can't, then you lose one of the major advantages of XML, namely the use of attributes to facilitate information searches and other functions (e.g., formatting the output for viewing). ****************************************************************************** >Are you implying that Frame should produce a DTD for >the files saved as XML? ***************************************************************** No, but an application pack from Adobe that includes a DTD, EDD, and read/write rules would be a nice kick-start for those venturing into XML. *********************************************************************** It seems to me that an approach similar to the >one that is employed for producing HTML would be quite reasonable. >It seems to me when you already have the high-end solution well covered, >you might be wise to cater to those seeking the lowest common >denominator solution. Given Frame's ability to deal well with highly >structured data in the form of SGML, I would have thought that the >creation of simple, well-formed XML would be the logical other end of >the market. >Having been involved for many years with the conversion of >legacy data, I wish all word processors were capable of producing just >such a thing - it would cut out the ugliest and most time-consuming step >of the conversion cycle. ***************************************************************** I thoroughly agree. The trouble is successful, trouble-free conversion requires that the unstructured source document be consistently and rigorously tagged, something that is, unfortunately, quite rare. Even if a document is consistently tagged, the tagging scheme must be designed to facilitate successful conversion, and often that is not the case. The result is that considerable post-conversion rework is usually required. Having to go through that re-conversion and rework process each time an unstructured source document is revised is highly inefficient, and makes no sense. Hence, I argue that the high-end solution, where all documents are authored, maintained, and archived as metadata-enriched (metadata in the form of attributes) structured documents is the only solution that makes sense. That's what I meant by "real". Dan Emory Dan Emory & Associates FrameMaker/FrameMaker+SGML Document Design and Database Publishing Specialists Voice/Fax: 949-722-8971 E-Mail: danemory@primenet.com 10044 Adams Ave. #208 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com ** ** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body. **