Re: Adobe credibility and FrameMaker development LONG-ish

[Dan Emory <danemory@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 03:26 PM 4/13/99 +1000, Marcus Carr wrote:
>
>Dan Emory wrote:
>
>> I agree with Mark Barrratt. FM+SGML V5.5.6 simply does not fully support
>> XML, either for import or export. Given the rapid pace at which XML is
>> evolving, Adobe's practice of issuing a new major FM+SGML about once every 2
>> years assures that FM+SGML will always lag behind. How, for example, will
>> FM+SGML create XML-compatible stylesheets (XSL) for structured documents
>> that are exported to XML?
>
>XSL had not (and has still not) reached "recommendation" status (the closest
>that the W3C has to a standard).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The question is not whether XSL has recommendation status, it's whether,
when it does reach that status, Adobe plans to allow the EDD's format rules
to be
converted to XSL stylesheets. This probably would mean that there would be
two versions of the EDD--one for use in printing/producing PDF, and a
modified version of the first one for producing XSL stylesheets.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
>Adobe's update cycle needs to be driven by sensible strategy, not the
>ticking of the clock.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All I was trying to convey is that a time separation of 2 years between
major releases guarantees that FM+SGML will lag behind XML's evolution. I'm
sure there are nimbler companies out there who are poised to issue new
releases of their XML-aware products concurrent with each segment of the
"standard" that reaches recommendation status. Adobe needs to adopt such a
strategy for FM+SGML.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> processing XML documents that don't have a DTD,
>
>Processing them how? Reading them in and inferring the structure?
>Perhaps you might opt to do this via the DOM? Although fairly
>widelyimplemented, DOM is still in "working draft" status.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't know what a "DOM" is. could you enlighten me?
What I really meant by "documents that don't have a DTD" was
whether FM+SGML 5.5.6 can export and import a document with either of the
following prologue and declarations:
________________________________________________________
<? XML version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" RMD='INTERNAL' ?>
<! DOCTYPE XYZ [
   the entire DTD
] >

OR

<? XML version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" RMD='NONE' ?>
________________________________________________________

where RMD stands for Required Markup Declaration, INTERNAL means that the
entire DTD is in the internal DTD subset, and "NONE" means that
an XML processor can parse the containing document without first reading
any part of the DTD.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> If FM+SGML is going to be
>> fully XML-capable, then Adobe will have to adopt a strategy (e.g., add-on
>> plug-ins) that will allow FM+SGML to keep pace with the evolution of XML.
>
>I couldn't agree more. I have yet to get a bite with this bait, but that is
exactly
>what I have been saying is the ultimate purpose of InDesign. It's just
crazy enough
>to work...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Everything I said before my last statement above was simply to supply
the reasons which support that conclusion. I'm glad we see eye-to-eye
on that conclusion, which is all that counts. I'm convinced that,
for Adobe to hold onto its installed FM+SGML base and also become a
dominant player in the XML world, it must announce it's strategy for
keeping pace with XML evolution very soon, else most people will begin
seeking a solution elsewhere.

The InDesign model does seem to fit nicely with my conclusion. 

Suppose Adobe were to announce it's strategy as follows:
_______________________________________________________________________
1. Adobe is committed to making its FM+SGML product fully compliant with
   the features of the XML "standard" listed below:
        a. SYNTAX
        b. XSL Style Sheets
        c. XLink
        d. Resource Description FrameWork (RDF)
        etc., etc.

2. The phrase "fully compliant" in item 1 above means that FM+SGML will be
capable of:
        a. Compliantly exporting structured documents created/edited
           in FM+SGML as well-formed XML document instances.

        b. Compliantly importing any well-formed XML document instance,
           regardless of how it was originated.

3. Within ___ months of the time that any of the above-listed segments
reaches W3C recommendation status, Adobe will issue a new FM+SGML release, a
plug-in, or ????? to support that feature.

4. Those who now have, or subsequently purchase, FM+SGML licenses will be
offered the opportunity to pay a one-time special XML maintenance
subscription fee that entitles them to automatically receive each new
release/plug-in that supports the XML features described in item 1 above.
This special subscription will remain in effect until all features listed in
item 1 above are fully supported in the FM+SGML product. At that point,
future maintenance can be obtained through the customary annual maintenance
subscription.

5. For existing FM+SGML license holders, the offer to sign up for the XML
maintenance subscription will expire on _____________. Those who do not sign
up before the expiration date can still obtain support through the customary
annual maintenance subscription.
________________________________________________________________

The special maintenance subscription described in item 4 above is intended
to entice the installed base into paying a (probably) lump-sum multi-year
subscription fee, thereby providing Adobe, up front, with a hefty chunk of
the development costs required to meet the commitments described in items 1
and 2 above. If most of the installed base signs up for the special
subscription, they're definitely in for the duration, which should give
Adobe renewed confidence in the future of the product. Suppose 20,000
licenses are signed up at $500 a pop. That's $10 million in development
money. If Adobe doesn't get enough sign-ups during the initial offering
period, they can still make the offer again later when more license holders
begin to realize that XML is for real.

Even more importantly, Adobe's public commitment to fully supporting XML in
the FM+SGML product should spur new license sales, adding even more to the
revenue stream.

This is a good deal. Think about someone who originally purchased FM+SGML
5.0 in the summer of 1996, has paid the annual maintenance fee for the past
three years, and must renew it for a fourth year within the next several
months. In effect, all they've gotten for their money is a bunch of bug
releases, plus the original version of V5.5. By comparison, those who didn't
sign up for maintenance were entitled to get all of those bug releases for
free, and had to pay only about $500 to get V5.5, and $25 to get V5.5.6.
Those who subscribed have paid much more than that in annual maintenance
subscription fees. Under the special subscription deal offerred in item 4
above, they're guaranteed to get their money's worth.


   
      
     ====================
     | Nullius in Verba |
     ====================
Dan Emory, Dan Emory & Associates
FrameMaker/FrameMaker+SGML Document Design & Database Publishing
Voice/Fax: 949-722-8971 E-Mail: danemory@primenet.com
10044 Adams Ave. #208, Huntington Beach, CA 92646
---Subscribe to the "Free Framers" list by sending a message to
   majordomo@omsys.com with "subscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.


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