Subject: Re: [xsl] Arguments for XSL From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:40:21 +0100 |
Hi Mark, > I've spent considerable time setting up an architecture using XML > and XSL in order to produce a help-system for one of our software > products. I feel using this system is much better than using a > WYSIWYG editor because it allows the writer to concentrate on > content and not on formatting. Formatting can be done by a different > person or at a different time via XSL style-sheets. > > I've pitched this idea to my manager and he likes it but when we > sent the whole package of to our head-office abroad for translation > into different languages, they didn't like it. They prefer using a > WYSIWYG editor (specifically ROBOHELP). > > My gut feel is XML is better even tho a WYSIWYG editor allows you to > see results immediately without compiling or anything. Aside from the reasons you've already stated, XML (with XSLT) is a good idea because: 1. If the XML is structured well, you can perform automated checks on the content of the help, for example to make sure that every page has a link on it. 2. You can convert the same content to many formats -- HTML, PDF printed materials (via XSL-FO), eBook format and so on -- fairly easily. On the WYSIWYG side, I've recently been converted to XMetaL as a way of editing XML documents in a WYSIWYG fashion. Just because you're using XML doesn't necessarily mean you can't edit the documents easily and see what they're going to eventually look like. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] Arguments for XSL, Mark Micallef | Thread | Re: [xsl] Arguments for XSL, Joerg Heinicke |
[xsl] Arguments for XSL, Mark Micallef | Date | Re: [xsl] Arguments for XSL, Antonio Gallardo Riv |
Month |