Lists Home |
Date Index |
Michael Kay wrote:
>But one of the strongest differences I have seen is in the extent to
>which the markup is seen as fundamentally affecting the meaning of the
>data. To document people, the text is fundamental, and markup is
>added-value: <b>blue</b> and <i>blue</i> are in essence the same text.
>To data people, <surname>Black</surname> and <color>Black</color>
>represent fundamentally different information.
This may be a little oversimplification. It tends to view "document" as
format rather than content. The publisher I work for would qualify as
document-centric in that order, entities, and mixed content are an integral
part of our XML content. However, format-specific elements like <b> and <i>
are taboo; we would use <surname> and <color> instead. Our DTDs focus on
media-neutral structural and content-based elements; output (print or
electronic) is handled later.
In this context, text is indeed fundamental; markup is indeed added-value.
But the added-value has to do with structural/content-based enhancement, not
We tend to produce "narrative" XML as opposed to "record-like" XML (see
Elliotte Rusty Harold's post from December:
Publishing System Specialist
Facts and Comparisons