Huh. There ya go. Being from a programming background originally, I equate 'xml' mostly with 'object-oriented' - a style of programming where code is developed in such a way as to optimise re-usability of each 'object' of code (I know, over-simplified!). So when I've heard 'structured authoring' bandied about, I've assumed a similar concept. But it's just 'organising the content first'? Disappointing. I was looking forward to a REAL revolution! ;-)
- Naomi Geoffrey Marnell wrote:
Hi austechies,The mostly informative and often passionate responses to my claim on austechwriter last week that knowledge *of* XML (as opposed to knowledge *about* XML) was not necessary, and is unlikely to be necessary, for anyone to gain sustained employment in technical writing gives me good grounds to think that a related topic—is structured authoring really a paradigm shift?—will also be of interest to some of you. In many ways, the two topics are related: those who have been misled into thinking that a knowledge *of* XML is fundamental to a career in technical writing are likely to think that they also need to embrace an entirely new authoring paradigm, to wit, structured authoring. They are likely to think this because it has become a common claim these days, even by those who are usually level-headed about XML-based publishing and not caught up in the hype and hoopla. For example, the usually level-headed Sarah O'Keefe (from /Scriptorium Publishing Services/) calls the move to structured authoring—the move to content-driven authoring as opposed to format-driven authoring—"paradigm-shifting" (see /INTECOM/, Society for Technical Communication, July/August 2008, p. 27).Oh no it's not.Many of us have heard this claim before. In fact, it's been spruiked for years, ever since at least 1979 when SGML first appeared: almost 20 years before XML, it's child, appeared on the scene. (Yes austechies: structured authoring has been around for a lot longer than XML and DITA.) But does theory match practice? Does any writer (can any writer?) really adopt a format-driven authoring methodology to the exclusion of a content-driven authoring methodology? I suspect not. Suppose, for example, that I am writing a scientific paper, reporting the results of my experimental research. Do I really say to myself : first, I shall start with some heading 1 text, move on to a heading 2 text, choose a smaller-than-normal body text format (maybe with some left and right indents) for the next paragraph, then add some more heading 2 text, and then some standard body text, and so on and so on. Of course not. No, we *naturally* think in terms of content: I start with a title, then I write the authors section. Next I add an abstract (introduced with its own heading), followed by the introduction, then the materials and methods section, followed by the results section, the discussion section, the acknowledgements, appendixes and finally the list of references. The whole paper is written in content chunks, not format chunks. We will certainly format the content chunks (and the sub-chunks: headings, lists and so on). But we primarily think of the paper we are writing as composed of chunks of content or topics. Formatting is always secondary. It is exactly the same with technical writing (and with any form of declarative writing). Formatting is always an after-thought. The fore-thought is the content types that will be the building blocks of my document. I don't say to myself as I am about to begin the steps in a procedure that I am choosing a list format. No, I say to myself that I am about to begin a procedure. This is a content type, not a format type. I may format it in a particular way—as a numbered list—but that is not the primary consideration. The primary consideration is that I am about to set out the steps to describe how a specific goal can be achieved. When I write a warning or caution, I am not saying in my mind that I am about to enter some bold text with a danger symbol attached. No. I say I am about to enter a warning or a caution. This is a decision about content. When I am writing a trouble-shooting section, I don't say that I am choosing a particular format type. No, I am choosing a particular content type. And so on. So, in a fundamental sense we have *always* been engaged in structured authoring, despite the relatively recent appearance of structured authoring tools. Far from being a paradigm shift in how we author declarative documents, structured authoring methodologies are actually doing little more than mirroring, at last, the way we have always authored. It is the tools that have changed; it is not how we author that needs to change. The structural components (or elements) that we see in DocBook, DITA and the like are just a reflection of the way we naturally chunk our writing: how we build a document from the blocks that are its necessary constituents. If it's always been that way—and it has—then authoring that way cannot be a paradigm shift. Strictly speaking, how we author in a structured authoring environment is a little different, but the difference is not such that a would-be or novice technical writer needs to be especially concerned. In the structured authoring we naturally do but with a non-structured authoring tool (such as Microsoft Word), we are free to construct the structure as we please and are free, too, to apply any format to any paragraph (and any character) that we type. In the structured authoring we naturally do but with a structured authoring tool (such as Structured FrameMaker), we are free to apply whatever content type is appropriate wherever we have our cursor. This is determined by the content rules in the associated schema, DTD or EDD. Formatting is another step: it is either applied via an associated style sheet or set out in the format rules specified in the associated EDD. But the principal difference is that with an unstructured authoring tool, you apply styles (aka formats) directly to the text you enter, whereas with structured authoring tools you directly apply content types (aka elements and their qualifying attributes) to the text you enter. Format is another step. With an unstructured tool, you select a style to apply to a chunk of text; with a structured tool you select a content type to apply to a chunk of text. And what is so smart about this is that the structured authoring methodology exactly mirrors the way we author, and the way we have always authored. This is no paradigm shift or quantum change. Rather, the tools are catching up with us. It is is not us who has to catch up with the tools. So don't be alarmed if you are new to TW and are confused by all the hype and hoopla about the need to learn XML and the need to embrace a new model of authoring. The model that many are apparently moving to is not new. It is a "model" (for want of a better word) that truly reflects the way we have always authored. Indeed, if you have written anything at all—with quill, crayon, chalk or Microsoft Word—you have more than likely engaged in structured authoring: content first; format second. What *is* new is that modern authoring tools can enforce a particular overall structure. And what is also new is the potential side-benefits of the infinitely customisable content-rule-cluster known as DITA. But the authoring methodology you will apply to any particular instantiation of DITA is as old as the quill (nay, as old old as speech itself): content first; format second. Did I really need to repeat that?Cheers Geoffrey Marnell Principal Consultant Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd T: (+61 3) 9596 3456 F: (+61 3) 9596 3625 W: http://www.abelard.com.au <http://www.abelard.com.au/>
************************************************** To view the austechwriter archives, go to www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes). To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes) go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter To contact the list administrator, send a message to austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx **************************************************