wcs@ho95e.UUCP (Bill.Stewart.4K435.x0705) (12/29/85)
In article <2592@glacier.ARPA> reid@su-glacier.ARPA (Brian Reid) writes: >Now, there are different compiler-model systems around. On this UNIX net we >like to talk about Troff, Scribe, and TeX. There is also IBM's GML, and >their idiotic "generalization" of it called SGML that IBM is trying to push >as an international standard (and succeeding, alas, in Europe--Europeans >really like SGML)...... [So does the Air Force, so lots of us are having to learn about it.] What kinds of things don't you like about SGML? I've had about 1 meeting's exposure to it, most of which was tied up in a religious argument between the SGML "Use-the-language-to-describe-content-and-not-format" people and the "Who-cares-about-content-nitty-gritty-format-people", and Scribe appears to be mostly on the SGML side of that argument. >WYSIWYG systems are better for these kinds of things: > ......... > >Compiler-model systems are better for these kinds of things: > > * Situations where someone besides author has responsibility for the >design and appearance of the final document, especially if the author has >opinions in this area and might try to manipulate the appearance anyhow. > .... > * Material that is likely to be re-used in a different format or context. >For example, a paper that you are writing could become a chapter in a book >or an appendix in a research proposal. It would be unfortunate to have to >edit the paper just to change its appearance to the new format. > The Air Force is working on specs for interchange and delivery of technical documentation, and is looking at SGML as a standard for description of text, with IGES as a standard for vector graphics and <maybe CCITT stuff?> for raster. In this case the format is totally outside the author's responsibility (there's a mil-spec that covers all the formats; nth-level subparagraphs MUST BE indented k spaces, in p-point type with the ugliest available font, etc.) The material may be reused in different formats, and printed at different resolutions on different-sized pages; SGML appears to be realistic for that. Of course they're kluging it up by adding page-breaks to a "content-only" description language, but that's another story. The assumption is that documents will be translated from whatever word-processor or formatting language the vendor feels like using into SGML. What problems does SGML have? Is it another COBOL (which should have been strangled at birth), or is it in better shape than that? Thanks; -- # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G-202, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs