RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Support of framemaker]]

Non-member submission from ["Peter Ashenden" <peter@...>]]
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Support of framemaker]]
> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:09:46 +0930
> 
> Jonathan,
> 
> When I said Word doesn't cut it, I qualified it by saying it's ok for
> smaller documents. Many IEEE standards are relatively thin, and using Word
> is fine for them. FrameMaker is widely used in the print publishing
> industry, since it does handle large documents satisfactorily.
> 
> Your reference to O'Reilly's specifications is interesting. It's basically
> the same as IEEE's (Word and FrameMaker templates), plus DocBook. The idea
> of using DocBook is that it's a DTD, so you can ensure correct structuring
> of a document and render it in different formats. But the DocBook DTD
> defines a different structure from IEEE standards, so it would be more
> appropriate to have an IEEE Standards DTD. And guess what - there is! See
> http://standards.ieee.org/resources/spasystem/dtd/. I just happen to use
> FrameMaker to edit documents structured according to this DTD. But if you'd
> prefer to edit raw SGML, or use some other tool that edits according to a
> DTD, you could write your draft that way.
> 
> In other words, IEEE already does what O'Reilly does. It's just that the
> SGML path is not widely advertised since most WGs don't know about or use
> the technology. Most WG members use Word in their day to day work, so that's
> the most comfortable path for them. Internally, IEEE use FrameMaker, since
> it's a tool that can deal with documents large and small, deals with SGML,
> and integrates into an industrial strength publishing flow.
> 
> Which brings me to an analogy. Think about your design flow for designing
> chips. For a major ASIC, you wouldn't use simple point tools. You'd use
> tools that can handle big designs, and (more importantly) integrate into a
> full design flow that leads all the way to the foundry. Similarly, in the
> publishing world, publishers don't use Word for similar reasons. They use
> tools that handle large documents and integrate into a full flow that leads
> all the way to press and on-line publication. There are quite a lot of
> processing steps after you deliver your draft. Try looking at a pre-flight
> manual from a print shop if you're interested!
> 
> Sorry to keep on about it. I guess my concern is that the discussion appears
> to stem from a limited context. When you bring the full context into
> consideration, the trade-offs are different.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> PA
> 
> --
> Dr. Peter J. Ashenden         peter@ashenden.com.au
> Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.    www.ashenden.com.au
> PO Box 640                    VoIP: sip://0871270078@sip.internode.on.net
> Stirling, SA 5152             Phone (mobile):  +61 414 70 9106
> Australia
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan David [mailto:j.david@ieee.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 29 August 2006 7:17 AM
> > To: Geoffrey.Coram; John Shields
> > Cc: verilog-ams@eda.org; Peter Ashenden
> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Support of framemaker]]
> >
> >
> > Given that Word doesn't cut it,
> > and that Framemaker isn't available for enough Systems,
> > As a Standards Association member, I'd be willing to (join a)
> > push to the IEEE to adopt a broader format for publishing
> > standards.. The folks at O'reilly seem to have the right
> > approach..
> >
> > http://oreilly.com/oreilly/author/ch02.html#tools
> >
> > What good is a Standards Association that can't leverage
> > other good standards..?? Jonathan (David)