[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
It seems that the next level of mystification will
come as I mentioned to Jonathan, when trying to
envision integration based on document types. This
has begun to feel unnatural and I can't put my
finger on why because I worked in the document
field for so long. Maybe it is because I saw just
how badly documents are designed when not done by
someone with a good eye and a sense of logical hierarchy.
So what you say about the TEI approach makes sense, but
it reminds me of studying standards like 38784 before
beginning a technical manual. (Gad, what a thought;
standards and best practices for XML data document designs...
talk about an eliptical career!)
In other words, the stuff most programmers produce
that have to be redone by the technical writing staff
before publication is pretty bad, and the web pages
we saw for awhile were too. Are we entering a topsy turvy
age where the technical writers become the senior
designers and the programmers work to their designs?
That fact alone could breed a counter revolution. :-)
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Arjun Ray [mailto:aray@nyct.net]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:
| Is there a confusion between loose coupling as an API/data model and
| loose coupling as file types on the wire? While both are viable, I
| wonder if we would have the same confusion if the InfoSet were taught
| before the syntax.
Infoset before syntax is a decent idea, but starting with infosets could
be just as confusing as starting with syntax. IMHO, it's best to start
with an explanation of and emphasis on hierarchic structure (the way the
TEI materials do, for instance, except that they were written before the
infoset concept, and use the syntax for examples).
|
