forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Nicola Ken Barozzi" <>
Subject Re: FAQ [was: Re: documentation architecture?]
Date Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:11:13 GMT
From: "Diana Shannon" <>

> On Thursday, April 25, 2002, Robert Koberg wrote:
> >>
> >> As you see, the *same* piece of information is conveyed in different
> >> ways.
> >> The *same*, no need to rewrite anything.
> >>
> >> On this list I haven't yet seen Diana say this, correct me if I'm
> >> wrong.
> >>
> >
> > Maybe I am wrong, but I thought the whole premise of XML was resuable
> > content abstracted from the presentation. I assumed this was a given,
> > where it is appropriate. But, you should not try to fit square pegs
> > into round holes.
> Ken, while you may be able to do this from a technological standpoint,
> just how much value does it add to the user/reader experience? Think how
> oppressive the style guide would have to be. Your "content blocks" would
> have to be unbearably monotone so that they could fit into any document
> context. This might work well for snippets of reference guides (with
> notoriously volatile timestamps) as discussed recently on cocoon-dev.
> However, I'd worry, in other cases, that you'd dampen the rich range of
> styles and tones authors employ when writing by forcing them to
> incorporate "official" content within their own works.
> Sometimes it's helpful to hear someone else say the same thing -- a bit
> differently.

Gee, I was starting to think that I was talking a different language ;-)
I think you got my point :-)

I see your point, but being programmer, I have the preconception that
duplicating code is bad. That's why I *love* javadocs, because they put the
information where it lives, and *only* there, in one place.

I'll think about it a bit more.

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
            - verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message