This is the mail archive of the davenport@berkshire.net mailing list for the Davenport project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Antwort: Re: DAVENPORT: Three more Questions.


> > <para>This is just some [[make these words fat cursive]] random blather</para>
> > The answer is, you can't. That's not what structural markup is all about.
> > Rather, you should author descriptively, not presentationally:
> 
> That reminds me of a question that I have always wanted to ask some
> more knowledgeable people in this subject: what's fundamentally wrong
> with having both structural and graphical markup? 

What's graphical markup? Does this mean presentational markup?

> I can think of a few applications where graphical markup seems the
> only solution. Suppose, for example, that you want to write a manual
> for a standard word processor, and you want to demonstrate what kind
> of text the menu item "italic" produces.

Yes, this is a good example, but it requires an element type which is
carefully named -- something like <printexample> with attributes for
font, size, style, weight, etc. 

This is often missing from DTDs which are constructed purely from the
structural-markup point of view. Even the TEI has some problems with
recording font and positioning data, for example when encoding things
like 16th century title pages for typographical/history purposes.

> Moreover, having the "escape mechanism" of explicit graphical markup
> would lower the intimidation threshold that keeps people from starting

This would be a VERY bad idea. There's quite enough presentational-only
markup in the world without us adding to it unnecessarily. 

I fully accept your concept of an "intimidation threshhold" (lovely
phrase!) but adding presentational markup in the way you imply would
instantly wreck any possibility of ever using SGMl in a meaningful
manner.

> with structural markup. Anyone considering DocBook, for example, runs
> the risk of not being able to produce an essential effect he wants

If it's that essential and it's missing, then a properly-reasoned
email to this list, with an example of what is needed, usually gets
a good response from the maintainers.

DocBook is written modularly precisely so it can be modified.
IF YOU BADLY NEED <EXAMPLEFONT> OR SOMETHING, IT CAN BE ADDED
VERY EASILY WITHOUT AFFECTING ANYTHING ELSE.

I add to and remove from DocBook all the time, because there are
lots of things I disagree with about how it's structured and the
facilities it provides and the assumptions it makes. But I'm in a
minority: most people seem to like it the way it is, so I just 
make the changes I need in a manner which conforms to the DTD and
its modularization, and everything works.

> without a one-year course in DSSSL. 

Don't use DSSSL. Convert using Omnimark direct to LaTeX instead :-) 
_Much_ easier.

> It might then seem a better choice
> to stay away from DocBook completely.

If presentation is the only consideration then DocBook is the wrong
tool to use. Word would be more suitable.

> LaTeX is an example of a system that permits both structural and
> graphical markup, and in my experience it has worked very well. I use
> graphical markup very sparingly, and yet I am always glad that I have
> it.

I use it all the time, but I only author in SGML and convert to
LaTeX for printing. LaTeX has many excellent points but it is only
for printing. SGML is for document maintainability (and other things).

And can we avoid this term "graphical markup" -- it sounds like CGM.

///Peter


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]