Re: XML-based Help Authoring tools for customized help

["Mark Baker" <listsub -at- analecta -dot- com>]

Sean Wheller wrote:

> > Again, no. What was said, if I remember correctly,
> was that *standards*
> are
> > for exchange.
>
> Hmm. The semantics again.
> A standard is common protocol or a common
> understanding that serves as a
> single point of reference upon which clear
> communication is based. XML is a
> standard, no? One result of which is exchange. Can we
> agree?

No, we can't agree, because you are conflating two separate concepts. A
standard for exchange is not the same thing as a standard used as part of
the specification of a standard for exchange. XML is not a standard for
exchange, but a standard that can be use to specify a markup language that
can be used as a standard for exchange. The distinction is vital.

Standards exist at many levels. For instance, Unicode is a standard for
expressing character sets. That standard is then used to build the XML
specification, which is a standard for specifying tagging languages. That
standard is then used (for example) to build the SOAP specification, which
is a standard for specifying interprocess communication.

You need to have an agreement on character sets before you can specify a
character-based markup language, otherwise the characters may not be
correctly interpreted on different systems. However, Unicode is used for
many things other than specifying XML. XML is not Unicode, it is simply a
product defined using Unicode. By the same token, DocBook is not XML, it is
simply a product defined using XML. You wouldn't use the word Unicode
interchangeable with the word XML and you shouldn't use the word XML
interchangeably with the word Docbook.

When it comes to the specific issue of exchange, successful exchange
requires agreement on many levels. Networking technologies, for instance,
use a seven layer model, and that is just to achieve transport of the data.

XML is a technology for describing the structure of an information encoding.
In the protocol stack required to actually transmit meaningful information
between systems, it fits into one of the intermediate layers. You need all
the layers to achieve effective communication. XML is just one of the
available choices for implementing the encoding structure layer of the
protocol.

It is not at all the case that you can effectively exchange information just
because it is encoded in XML. If the sender and receiver don't have the same
expectations at the semantic layer, then the fact that both use XML at the
structural encoding layer will not help. In other words, if you send me
Docbook and I am expecting DITA, then the communication will fail, even
though both Docbook and DITA are defined in XML. It is the adoption of a
specific markup language with agreed semantics that makes the communication
possible, not the mere adoption of XML.

And yes, it really is necessary to insist on these distinctions because you
really do tend to use the words XML and Docbook interchangeably in your
posts. I have no way of knowing whether you actually understand the
difference or not, but one of the big problems today is that many of the
people considering a move to XML do not understand the difference. It is
therefore essential to make the distinction clear to them, which means I do
feel obliged to point out when you confuse the two.

I'm sorry if that seems pedantic, but this is unfortunately a field in which
misunderstanding is not only common, but also highly costly. Not only are
people implementing inappropriate solutions because they do not understand
these distinctions, but people are also being turned off considering markup
solutions because they see only their generic implementations and thus fail
to see the full range of possibilities markup technologies can offer.

 Docbook is one specific solution (more specific than Word of Frame for
instance) that must stand on its merits as a solution. That it happens to
use XML as a file format (as do several other specific solutions) is of
minor importance at best. Its virtues and its vices lie in its specific
semantics and the quality of the tools that work with those semantics.

XML is a means by which custom tagging languages can be created. This is an
enormously important thing, just as Unicode's definition of a common
character set is an enormously important thing. But they are just building
blocks. There importance is that they let you build more easily. But the
importance and worth of the thing that you build with them is still based on
the merits of the design for that building, and not on the merits of the
tools you used to build it.

Mark Baker
Analecta Communications


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP FOR FRAMEMAKER TRIAL NOW AVAILABLE!

RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.  
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for 
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.