Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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 output format. We tend to produce "narrative" XML as opposed to "record-like" XML (see Elliotte Rusty Harold's post from December: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200212/msg00193.html). ======================= Douglas Rudder Publishing System Specialist Facts and Comparisons WoltersKluwer Health Phone: 314-216-2227 e-mail: drudder@d... www.drugfacts.com =======================
|
