This is the mail archive of the docbook@lists.oasis-open.org mailing list for the DocBook project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [docbook] Loss of faith -- somewhat rantish


John Levon wrote:

On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 06:13:03AM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:



Again, sorry for the rant,


If you can't understand the framework, then don't. You don't have to learn


<snip/>
Scot, the XML stuff, and the available free tools currently, *are* hard
to use. The relevant syntax *is* obscure, and the multitude of related
standards is confusing. But the question you should ask yourself is
this: "Would things be better without using the current standard stuff
such as XML and XSLT etc. ?".

I think the answer here is a clear "no". Use of the current technologies
and standards is a *major* benefit for DocBook users. This is simply
because the use of open, well-defined standards incurs all the usual
benefits. All the tools can agree on what format files should be in.
People conversant with the technologies can easily handle all the nasty
details, instead of re-learning them for some "simplified DocBook XMLish"
and associated tools. Standard tools can work with these documents.
Documents can be exchanged in the surety they will be inter-operable.
The information is well-structured and clearly defined. Documents in
these standard formats can be handled in a very flexible and extendible
manner.

This is all true, but Scot seemed to focussed on the authoring activity. Most of the benefits that you list -- and they are real -- come in at what I call the design and management levels, and with respect to the sub-document (or content) and publication processes. I didn't see him being primarily concerned about those aspects.

I think all you are really asking for is more usable tools. I don't
think anybody would deny that the current toolset is relatively immature
in terms of "polish".

I think he should also be asking himself "how much do I need to know to professionally, responsibly or reliably use this system?" If his questions are other than hypothetical, they tell me that he hasn't yet come to terms with the fact that there is a lot of theory -- no matter how convenient, well-wrapped or hidden the details -- that must be understood to use an XML system and DocBook in particular.

I don't think it is responsible advice to say, "just forget the details"; saying so is roughly equivalent to saying, "you don't need to know how to set the timer on your VCR to tape your favorite show" or, in another direction, "it's OK to let your favourite word processor vendor define 'easy to use' and 'convenient'; and you don't need to know or care what impact those definitions have on your writing productivity and the shareability of what you create." For my part, I've wasted enough time cleaning up the mess in the Word files of semi-trained authors to know there is a hidden and very-large productivity sink created by people's not knowing how their systems work or how to work their systems.

In fact, it may be a virtue to have these issues surface and demand to be dealt with. You really can't get very far beyond the generic with DocBook unless you deal with these questions of "customization." As the answers emerge, each person and organization actually *knows* what they think and want to do about their documents. This is an aspect of knowledge management. My experience tells me that organizations and their management that actually *want to* and *do* confront these questions are few and far between. I think of this situation as a form of "organizational illiteracy" and it generates a significant and often hidden opportunity cost for those organizations.

But I wander into a rant of my own. My apologies. rgrds. ...edN



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-help@lists.oasis-open.org


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