Re: Scheme Programming Reference

[Paul Tyson <ptyso@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck Robey wrote:
> ...
> I find it enormously enlightening, when someone suggests a method of
> making dsssl more accessible, that there is a strong preference towards
> a more scholarly (if well done) computer-science oriented book.  The
> demonstrated lack of understanding of the *publishing* audience that
> dsssl is *supposed* to serve makes it quite clear why dsssl is now and
> will remain a guarded toy of elites.
> 
> You are not trying to inform analysts, you want to inform writers.  This
> seems actually droll, to even consider that any author would be willing
> to consider such a book.  Have you known any *non-technical* authors?
>... 
> Who is (or should be) dsssl's intended audience?
> ...

Chuck makes some good points and reminds us of some good questions.  I
don't agree that we have to conform to existing expectations of the
"publishing" audience in order to "be successful".  The art of
publishing (as with all practical arts) is informed by a set of
paradigms that have evolved from primitive practices and been adapted to
many different technologies.  (For instance, I once heard that serifs on
latin characters are holdovers from the stonecutter's craft.) 
Electronic typesetting really didn't change any major paradigms of
publishing--it just reimplemented them with new technology.  Generic
descriptive markup, on the other hand, introduces a significant paradigm
shift.

My interpretation of DSSSL's "lack of success" is that it pushed this
paradigm shift too far too fast.  (Ditto for HyTime, by the way.)  The
people who will be using DSSSL (or CSS, or XSL) in the future are
probably not the same people who are responsible for applying style to
documents for publishing.  The roles are changing and will continue to
change.  The net effect will be to put matters of style under the
control of style experts (who may also be authors).  Just like the net
effect of implementing SGML is to allow writers to again focus on the
structure and content of their work.

So just because we are not appealing to the current "publishing"
audience doesn't mean we are being ineffective.  Nor does it imply we
are guarding DSSSL as a toy for the elites.  We just believe that DSSSL
is the most powerful, useful (and yes, elegant) method for processing
structured documents that has yet been proposed.  And we need to do a
better job enunciating those beliefs.

Paul Tyson


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist