[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hey there,
It's my first post out here as I recently joined this list. I think your
points Len are a little harsh towards Adobe (I don't know enough about
ArborText though).
Adobe, in their own way (that is at the deep core graphics, and then
network publishing) have embraced XML fairly early in its existence,
providing a world-class and free SVG implementation since the earliest
days of the SVG Working Drafts (the Adobe SVG Viewer). They have since
done an extensive work publicizing SVG, included SVG support in many
products (Illustrator, AlterCast, InDesign and FrameMaker), introduced
an XML-based metadata platform called XMP and pushed custom XML grammars
for interoperability between Adobe applications.
As a regular user of Adobe products I am really satisfied by how they
have been using XML in their products, and very intelligently too; and
by that I do not mean the "hype factor" - contrary to rival Macromedia -
but for the sheer benefit of useability.
Antoine
-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
Sent: mardi 16 avril 2002 21:08
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: [xml-dev] Adobe Discovers Information Can Change
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/industry/04/09/xml.publishing.idg/index.htm
l?related
Adobe discovers that markup enables reuse of content.
When authoring content in XML, "you are able to store content in a
media-neutral format and apply business rules to that content," she
said.
So does a decent relational database.
Apparently ArborText didn't know this either until XML was invented.
"We're beginning to realize that information is dynamic, and the
question becomes, how do you keep it in sync?,"
said Ray Schiavone, president and chief executive officer of Arbortext.
I know what Adobe was doing before XML: beating on SGML and promoting
PostScript and PDF. What
was ArborText doing? Promoting single source publishing with SGML.
Where was Schiavone?
I guess this stuff was meant for unwashed consumption, but really, it
only makes their CEOs and
CTOs look bad. We've been out here using markup and dbs to create and
repurpose content
for a long time now. Somehow I think the Adobe statements are unioned
to the product costs. If it ain't
new and different, how could it cost that much? ArborText on the other
hand, has to deal with
the demonizing of SGML, the source of all of XML's good inventions, and
explain to the press
why they went so far with the demon before their conversion. That
was the price of warping
history, but it must make investors nervous.
The dot.bomb mentality is still pervasive in the front offices of the
web. Caveat emptor.
len
|
