"Wendell Piez" <[log in to unmask]>
said on Wednesday, January 10, 2001 7:12 AM
> At 09:12 AM 1/10/01 -0800, Lindsey Thomas Martin wrote:
> I have just begun to learn XMetaL but was under the impression
> >that it could be customised so that staff and other contributors
> >would be exposed only to an interface very like a normal word-processor.
> >Is this not the case or are there are reasons why it would not
> >be a suitable tool in Mr Muelver's situation?
> We use (and recommend) XMetaL, and it is very configurable, and can be
> "very like a normal word-processor" or even (arguably) what a
> word-processor *should* be (as opposed to the feature-bloated
> word-processors that are the rule...not that I have anything against
> features as such: it's just that unstructured editing environments, based
> on proprietary formats, set you up for problems down the road, and
> generally the more features are used, the worse it gets).
> The success of any installation like this, however (and this goes for
> as well as XMetaL) is going to depend directly on how well the document
> model (DTD) is designed and how well it fits the users' actual
> requirements, as well as on how good a job is done with local
> customizations. This is always going to be true. The design and
> of the DTDs/schemas will be a central problem in Mr Muelver's case.
Then I should have it knocked. I've been tech writing in structured mode
since 1966, and have written scads of DTD-like template systems in
InfoMapping, Word, WordPerfect, Interleaf, FrameMake MIF and MML, VAX
Document SDML, CSS.... XML and DTDs look like a pretty short step from here.
The case for XMetaL seems to be building up!