Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Saturday 10 April 2004 09:23, Dave Pawson wrote:
> At 20:57 09/04/2004, Ari Nordström wrote:
> > > A common fallacy, and one I'm not surprised to hear from you given
> > > your avowed SGML background.
> >Fallacy? This depends on what the system's supposed to do, and what the
> >writer's allowed to do in that context. One of the main points of having a
> >DTD in the first place is to provide a set of structural rules to be
> For the completed document I'm 100% with you. It's a good option.
> Whilst writing one? No thanks.
When writing the document, I think it's absolutely essential. My experience is
that writers left to their own devices can quickly create costly problems.
The DTD that is used will have to be right for the purpose--writing that
particular document type in that particular context--but it doesn't have to
be the same that is used when publishing the complete document.
> Whilst converting something from DTD A to B? No thanks.
> If you are purposely creating an invalid document? No thanks.
That's the problem. I don't want my writers to purposefully create invalid
documents. I'm sure there are situations when it is a good thing, but the
average technical writer producing, say, service information that will be
processed in a variety of ways and published in a variety of media, needs to
create valid documents. It's a necessity.