Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Friday 18 October 2002 3:38 pm, W. Hugh Chatfield I.S.P. wrote:
> I can think of a "normal" way that keeping these FO files make a lot of
> sense, esp. for documentation control in the large (although certainly not
> for printing one up small documents)
> Consider a "document" for a Nortel switch or a Boeing aircraft.
> You need to know for version x of the switch sold into China, which version
> of which pieces of the "document" get assembled into the documentation for
> the specific product delivered. Further, you need to retain this
> information over time (and I wouldn't consider it null knowledge).
Ah, not that knowledge - I meant this:
<fo:block margin-top="30pt" margin-bottom="17pt" margin-left="51pt"
margin-right="9pt" border-top-width="0pt" border-bottom-width="0pt"
border-left-width="4pt" border-right-width="2pt" border-top-style="solid"
border-right-color="gray" font-family="Optima" font-size="12pt"
font-weight="bold">Diagram 5.4: </fo:inline>Version of inductive coupling
using 0.5pF polyester capacitors.</fo:block>
How does this tell anyone that this once upon a time had a semantically loaded
structural meaning such as
<caption><strong>Diagram 5.4: </strong>Version of inductive coupling using
0.5pF polyester capacitors.</caption>
- this info is lost, but replaced by other pertinent presentation-related
info. Not pertinent to anyone dredging up 'web' matter from the future
though. If they needed to know that sort of thing, it's in the source doc.
That's what I meant by 'null knowledge' - all that border stuff is not going
to help you greatly if you're searching for captions.
> copy of this info is sort of a locked in copy that can be moved to
> paper/cdrom at will without having to reassemble the whole thing again
> (even though possible .. may not be as cheap as the cost of storing the
> FO). So cost reduction might be an argument for keeping the FO in larger
> scale environments.
Not convinced. In fact, using your examples, you're in danger of presenting
possibly out of date possibly distributed possibly restored from backup etc.
versions rather than to regenerate the freshest one and only. [strokes chin,
makes tea, wondering if I'm actually right - nah - nobody ever does that with
PostScript unless they're mad or talk to themselves.].