XML Production Workflows? Start with the Web and XHTML - 1 views
-
Challenges: Some Ugly Truths The challenges of building—and living with—an XML workflow are clear enough. The return on investment is a long-term proposition. Regardless of the benefits XML may provide, the starting reality is that it represents a very different way of doing things than the one we are familiar with. The Word Processing and Desktop Publishing paradigm, based on the promise of onscreen, WYSIWYG layout, is so dominant as to be practically inescapable. It has proven really hard to get from here to there, no matter how attractive XML might be on paper. A considerable amount of organizational effort and labour must be expended up front in order to realize the benefits. This is why XML is often referred to as an “investment”: you sink a bunch of time and money up front, and realize the benefits—greater flexibility, multiple output options, searching and indexing, and general futureproofing—later, over the long haul. It is not a short-term return proposition. And, of course, the returns you are able to realize from your XML investment are commensurate with what you put in up front: fine-grained, semantically rich tagging is going to give you more potential for searchability and recombination than a looser, more general-purpose approach, but it sure costs more. For instance, the Text Encoding initiative (TEI) is the grand example of pouring enormous amounts of energy into the up-front tagging, with a very open-ended set of possibilities down the line. TEI helpfully defines a level to which most of us do not have to aspire.[5] But understanding this on a theoretical level is only part of the challenge. There are many practical issues that must be addressed. Software and labour are two of the most critical. How do you get the content into XML in the first place? Unfortunately, despite two decades of people doing SGML and XML, this remains an ugly question.
-
Practical Challenges In 2009, there is still no truly likeable—let alone standard—editIng and authorIng software for XML. For many (myself Included), the high-water mark here was Adobe’s FrameMaker, substantially developed by the late 1990s. With no substantial market for it, it is relegated today mostly to the tech writIng Industry, unavailable for the Mac, and just far enough afield from the kInds of tools we use today that its adoption represents a significant hurdle. And FrameMaker was the best of the breed; most of the other software In decent circulation are programmers’ tools—the sort of thIngs that, as Michael Tamblyn poInted out, encourage editors to drInk at their desks. The labour question represents a stumblIng block as well. The skill-sets and mInd-sets that effective XML editors need have limited overlap with those needed by literary and more traditional production editors. The need to thInk of documents as machIne-readable databases is not somethIng that comes naturally to folks steeped In literary culture. In combInation with the sheer time and effort that rich taggIng requires, many publishers simply outsource the taggIng to India, drawIng a division of labour that spans oceans, to put it mildly. Once you have XML content, then what do you do with it? How do you produce books from it? Presumably, you need to be able to produce prInt output as well as digital formats. But while the latter are new enough to be generally XML-friendly (e-book formats beIng largely XML based, for Instance), there aren’t any straightforward, standard ways of movIng XML content Into the kInd of prInt production environments we are used to seeIng. This isn’t to say that there aren’t ways of gettIng prInt—even very high-quality prInt—output from XML, just that most of them Involve replacIng your prepress staff with Java programmers.
-
Why does this have to be so hard? It’s not that XML is new, or immature, or untested. Remember that the basics have been around, and in production, since the early 1980s at least. But we have to take account of a substantial and long-running cultural disconnect between traditional editorial and production processes (the ones most of us know intimately) and the ways computing people have approached things. interestingly, this cultural divide looked rather different in the 1970s, when publishers were looking at how to move to digital typesetting. Back then, printers and software developers could speak the same language. But that was before the ascendancy of the Desktop Publishing paradigm, which computerized the publishing industry while at the same time isolating it culturally. Those of us who learned how to do things the Quark way or the Adobe way had little in common with people who programmed databases or document-management systems. Desktop publishing technology isolated us in a smooth, self-contained universe of toolbars, grid lines, and laser proofs. So, now that the reasons to get with this program, XML, loom large, how can we bridge this long-standing divide?
- ...44 more annotations...
-
I was looking for an answer to a problem Marbux had presented, and found this interesting article. The issue was that of the upcoming conversion of the Note Case Pro (NCP) layout engine to the WebKit layout engine, and what to do about the NCP document format. My initial reaction was to encode the legacy NCP document format in XML, and run an XSLT to a universal pivot format like TEI-XML. From there, the TEI-XML community would provide all the XSLT transformation routines for conversion to ODF, OOXML, XHTML, ePUB and HTML/CSS. Researching the problems one might encounter with this approach, I found this article. Fascinating stuff. My take away is that TEI-XML would not be as effective a "universal pivot point" as XHTML. Or perhaps, if NCP really wants to get aggressive; IDML - inDesign Markup Language. As an after thought, i was thinking that an alternative title to this article might have been, "Working with Web as the Center of Everything".