[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: Doug Rudder [mailto:drudder@drugfacts.com]
>It depends. For repurposing of content for both print and electronic,
>SGML/XML certainly provides more flexibility and functionality.
Certainly.
> At the company I work
>for, HTML is just one of many output formats; the publishing database is
>SGML (or XML).
Here, the sources tend to be relational, but the same issues apply.
>In fact, on the web, HTML provides the viewable format, but
>the search function runs against the XML in the background.
As it should.
>My main point is that there have been numerous folks
>publishing/creating documents in SGML for some years who have simply not
>seen the ROI value in switching wholesale to XML -- *yet*.
If one already has the SGML tools, use them. I'm not sure how
anxious I would be to do that either. It should be possible
to adapt SGML tools to create XML.
>But media-neutral
>"document-centric" markup certainly exists and cannot be discounted as
>unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
Right. One should remember who brought us to the party.
>As tools and vendor support
>shifts more toward XML, we will undoubtedly see more SGML folks make the
>switch as well (my company is leaning that direction now, as are others I
>know of).
I wonder if the SGML vendors will simply make XML a checkbox on
the list of doable things and drop their prices. XML won't kill
SGML until it can do everything SGML can do as well as SGML can
do it. Harrumphs will be ignored if one wants to flame that.
len
|
