[austechwriter] Re: I'm not sure how well a strict XML structure would work in the real world
- From: "Tony Cusack" <tcusack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 18:23:25 +1000
Hi Elizabeth,
My choice would be any of the Wrox or O'Reilly titles.
To really leverage XML you need XSLT. Whereas you might get away with
tutorials etc for XML you'll definitely need a good book for XSLT. I'd
recommend 'XSLT & XPath' by John Gardner & Zarella Rendon, Prentice Hall.
There's also a new title out from Wrox by Jenny Tennison which, judging from
other stuff of hers that I've read, should be good.
rgds,
Tony Cusack.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fullerton, Elizabeth" <Elizabeth.Fullerton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:08 AM
Subject: [austechwriter] Re: I'm not sure how well a strict XML structure
would work in the real world
> Can anyone recommend a good XML book for beginners? (A timely question =
> from one of my business analysts - and it's probably not a bad idea for =
> me to start looking at one, either).
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tcusack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tcusack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 May 2003 10:54 AM
> To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [austechwriter] Re: I'm not sure how well a strict XML
> structure would work in the real world
>
>
> Quoting Steve Hudson <cruddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > 3) A couple of examples of stuff I am pretty sure we can do in XML but =
> not
> > in HTML.
>
> Sure, so far as XML tags & attributes are concerned: <myDate =
> fmt=3D"sensible">28=20
> May 2003</myDate>. But XSL doesn't include any date functions so you'd =
> have to=20
> build your own.
>
> >=20
> > Date tags with the date format tagged as well
> > Prices tagged with whether it includes GST.
> >=20
> >=20
> > 4a) I meant turning a set of delimited data constructs into a nicely =
> ruled
> > up column and row layout effect :-) It's a table of data that needs to =
> be
> > laid out as a human-viewable table.
>
> Oh, that's what I meant as well, so I don't see the problem. Any =
> technology=20
> that includes a text source for the formatting device to read is =
> amenable to=20
> XML-XSL. Currently this means HTML, PDF via XSLT:FO and now that MS have =
> come=20
> to the party, Word docs. Not suggesting that the transformations are =
> easy, but=20
> they will become widely available over the next 18 mths or so.
>
> ciao,
> TC.
>
> >=20
> > E1) LOL.
> >=20
> >=20
> > Steve Hudson
> >=20
> > Word Heretic, Sydney, Australia
> > Tricky stuff with Word or words for you.
> > Email: word_heretic@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Products: http://www.geocities.com/word_heretic/products.html
> > Spellbooks: 735 pages of dump left and dropping...
> >=20
> > The VBA Beginner's Spellbook: For all VBA users.
> >=20
> >=20
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony Cusack
> >=20
> > Hi Steve,
> > 2) I'll be distributing some standard XSLTs 'sometime' this year.
> > 3) As I say DTDs are for me highly desirable but not essential. So far =
> as
> > coming up with a generic doc model is concerned my argument is that =
> it's
> > already here by way of HTML. HTML is the lingua franca of electronic
> > publishing - just about everything will pass through that filter at =
> some
> > stage in its life cycle. So why not adopt it as the bottom line model. =
> I'd
> > love to hear some ifs and buts on this.
> > 4) Not sure what you mean by table tables. But given an XML structure =
> to
> > begin with I don't believe there's any other structure (ie whacky =
> exceptions
> > excepted) that can't be derived from it with XSLT. There are of course =
> other
> > transformation languages re which I know next to nothing.
> > 4a) Yeh, again I know little about typesetting. But XSLT:FO works a =
> treat
> > for the kind of hard copy that you or I might be asked to produce on a
> > techwriting gig.
> > 4b) Whew a litany of dunnos. But, to change tack a little - my beef is =
> with
> > the perception that DTDs are essential to XML. Its designers did the =
> world a
> > big service by providing the less demanding rules of well-formedness, =
> and my
> > criticism is that that fact is often overlooked. But I'm not blind to =
> the
> > fact that the additional functional they support will be essential in =
> many
> > contexts and highly desirable in others.
> >=20
> > An Essential context is web-services - a topic which doesn't seem to =
> have
> > got much of a trot on this list although I'm pretty sporadic in
> > monitoring-participating. A highly desirable context is drop downs in
> > editing interfaces such as you mention in 1).
> >=20
> > Main point: the DTD syntax is itself pretty simple. They shouldn't be =
> an
> > issue in a well established production process. But they can be a pain =
> in
> > the neck when you're developing, so baste before you garnish.
> >=20
> > E1) For my sins I got to be the writer for the Solution 6 Tax package =
> a few
> > years back. So tell me about ELF ('though we called it ELS for =
> service). All
> > this (yr trade eg too) will be defined as web services in the next =
> couple of
> > years.
> >=20
> > ciao,
> > Tony.
> >=20
> >=20
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Hudson" <cruddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:48 AM
> > Subject: [austechwriter] Re: I'm not sure how well a strict XML =
> structure
> > would work in the real world
> >=20
> >=20
> > > Dear Tony,
> > >
> > > some excellent points here, a few very close to my heart.
> > >
> > > 1) Agreed, and nice howevers.
> > >
> > > 2) Totally agreed, I have been raving about, and pushing developers =
> for
> > > ages, providing some gorgeous XML tools that build DTDs from a =
> simple GUI
> > > (hand tweak if you want finesse, most of us want simple, repeatable
> > stuff).
> > > Standard XSLTs could also be built - and even integrated into the =
> provided
> > > toolset. A simple example, the HATT systems could have a dropdown =
> with
> > > audiences listed that would change the provided content. Skins could =
> be
> > > modified on the fly for those people with visual difficulties and so =
> on.
> > > <Rave mode detected, autoshutdown commencing in 3 words. Three, two =
> one.
> > > CARRIER DROPPED>
> > >
> > > 3) Something addressable by said tools in 2). Problem is, most =
> developers
> > > are waiting for MS to take a direction :-( After all, they are the =
> boys
> > with
> > > the big bucks right? And whoever develops these tools will sure as =
> shit
> > see
> > > MS rip them off. Not good. Time for another HotDog I think, the =
> current
> > > organisations seem too complacent and cautious. I might have to =
> start
> > > looking further afield into hackerdom <shudders>. Man, if you want =
> to
> > <Rave
> > > mode detected, autoshutdown commencing in 3 words. Three, two one. =
> CARRIER
> > > DROPPED>
> > >
> > > 4) Disagree. Tables are structured data and fit neatly into an XML =
> schema.
> > > However, the presentation transform then needs to convert them into =
> table
> > > tables.
> > >
> > > 4a) AFAIAC, the most difficult problem for XML is flowing into =
> print. Each
> > > hand-setup we see in books is monstrously difficult and forbiddingly
> > > time-consuming to perform for each possible combination of tags when =
> we
> > are
> > > talking about very rich, highly structured data. However, =
> auto-setting
> > > technology is improving slowly and given the proliferation of unset =
> type
> > > this may not be such an issue to the next generation. Other than =
> myself -
> > an
> > > observably insane person anyway - who cares about auto-hyphenation =
> under
> > the
> > > age of 40 anyway? :-)
> > >
> > > 4b) You then raise the insurance form thingy. This is, unfortunately =
> for
> > > your argument, an excellent example of why business needs XML. Don't
> > forget
> > > Tony, Big Business made COBOL. At least the XML principle is
> > understandable,
> > > but the DTD looks like COBOL won again. LOL!
> > >
> > > Lets take a few existing, simple examples. I know I repeat, but =
> history
> > > points to our future.
> > >
> > > E1) The ATO introduced a little thing known as an ELF back in the =
> early
> > > eighties. It revolutionised the tax industry. It facilitated the
> > > streamlining of returns from many months to a few weeks. It's an
> > Electronic
> > > Lodgement Form. You can now generate these direct from software and =
> send
> > > them in by the net. My old man was doing it for his clients as he =
> owned
> > and
> > > operated a small accountancy business using mini computers. He was =
> pleased
> > > as well, profits grew and he took on more staff and partners.
> > >
> > > E2) The shipping and customs industries internationally have used a
> > > standardised EXIT form from the late eighties. It revolutionised
> > > international shipping, reducing error rates, delivery times and
> > processing
> > > inefficiencies whilst increasing the control and flexibility. =
> Governments
> > > and businesses alike were able to exchange meaningful information =
> with a
> > > minimum of fuss on a global scale.
> > >
> > > So, the very bottom line of business requires the use of =
> standardised data
> > > exchange on many levels. Business requires control. In the real =
> business
> > > world, a strict XML structure for data components is almost a =
> certainity.
> > > What we need is the tools to make it happen. At the present point =
> the best
> > > tool is the human mind version 2003 through Notepad. The tool needs
> > training
> > > and the best place in Aus for that is the AODC.
> > >
> > > Steve Hudson
> > >
> > > Word Heretic, Sydney, Australia
> > > Tricky stuff with Word or words for you.
> > > Email: word_heretic@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Products: http://www.geocities.com/word_heretic/products.html
> > > Spellbooks: 735 pages of dump left and dropping...
> > >
> > > The VBA Beginner's Spellbook: For all VBA users.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tony Cusack
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > > This is my second attempt to post this, so apologies if you've seen =
> it
> > > before.
> > >
> > > But following on from last week's discussion re Word & Frame and =
> 'font
> > > fondling' vs structured and all that, I (as unabashed XML =
> proselytizer)
> > feel
> > > I have to draw attention to a couple of facts.
> > >
> > > First is this: YOU DO NOT NEED A DTD TO RUN XML
> > > Sorry about the caps, but it's such a widespread misconception that =
> the
> > > contrary is true. Certainly if you want to validate the XML file =
> then you
> > > must have a DTD (or other rules file). But XML has so much to offer =
> apart
> > > from validation that it's a shame to see techwriters dismissing it =
> on
> > > account of a complication that isn't relevant to 90% of the work =
> that they
> > > do. Sure if you're in Bill Hall's situation (Defence, stringent =
> content
> > > control, high volumes) then you'll be buying into the full =
> catastrophe.
> > But
> > > others should be aware that XML has introduced (as a qualification =
> to the
> > > stricter, more complex & powerful SGML) what could be described as =
> an
> > 'entry
> > > level grammar' . The so called rules of WELL-FORMEDNESS prescribe a =
> very
> > > simple structure that a document must have in order to be =
> processable by
> > an
> > > XML aware application.
> > >
> > > This fact qualifies the following Mike Buckler statements.
> > >
> > > Authoring XML/SGML is definitely slower. There are several reasons.
> > >
> > > 1) Using a DTD as complex as Docbook requires many hours of study.
> > > True, but why a DTD? And even if you're using one, why DocBook. My =
> point
> > is
> > > that the questions should be put - there are of course good reasons =
> for
> > > both, in some circumstances.
> > >
> > > 2) The current crop of XML/SGML aware tools are not particularly =
> user
> > > friendly.
> > > This is off the present topic but I'd have to differ again: XML Spy =
> is the
> > > goods IMHO; I can't comment on others 'cause I haven't seriously =
> tried
> > them
> > > (no need to :-)
> > >
> > > 3) If the DTD doesn't fit the type of document exactly, then you can
> > > spend as much time revising the DTD and style rules as actually
> > > writing the document.
> > > As for 1 above. And Spy (and other tools) will reverse engineer a =
> DTD from
> > > an XML document.
> > >
> > > 4) Things like tables do not fit into the classic XML/SGML model. =
> This
> > > is where presentation (column and row layout) comes into play and
> > > messes up the whole point of using XML/SGML in the first place.
> > > I'm at a loss to understand where this comment is coming from, but =
> venture
> > > the following. I suspect that Mike has formed his opinion under the
> > > influence of DocBook. DocBook is a very rich DTD and will save lots =
> of DTD
> > > developers lots of work over the long term. But its default table =
> model is
> > > CALS which (I believe) is of longstanding use in the =
> defence/aerospace
> > SGML
> > > community. CALS is somewhat more complex than the much more widely
> > > understood HTML model, and translation between the two is less than
> > > straightforward (but no more than a few hours work for a competent =
> XSLT,
> > > Perl, whatever, scripter).
> > >
> > > But for most techwriters most of the time this is all pretty =
> esoteric.
> > There
> > > is no 'classic model'. Describe your table as you would in HTML and =
> worry
> > > about more complex models as and when the need arises.
> > >
> > > The current hype around XML is mainly to do with data interchange
> > > between application that do data processing. For example an =
> insurance
> > > claim form where a set number of fields must be completed in order =
> to
> > > create a "valid document".
> > >
> > > I don't know that the hype is quite current (I thought it peaked a =
> couple
> > of
> > > years back, but maybe that's just me) - but the distinction between =
> data
> > > centric and document centric XML is important. It's true that most =
> of the
> > > XML development focus through the e-commerce period has been on data
> > centric
> > > forms such as Mike cites. But SGML was designed for narrative style
> > > documents and XML is only slightly less capable in that regard. For =
> myself
> > > I've spent a good deal of time figuring out the XSLT necessary to =
> navigate
> > > narrative style doc structures, wondering all the while what the =
> much
> > > vaunted implementation of XML in Word would mean. Well now that it's =
> here
> > > (in beta) I can say that the good news (and fact number two in this =
> little
> > > spiel) is
> > >
> > > WORD 2003'S XML FUNCTIONALITY IS NOT PROPRIETARY
> > > How so? Because the standards bar is actually quite low. As I've =
> pointed
> > out
> > > earlier an XML doc need only conform with well-formedness rules to =
> 'be'
> > XML.
> > > It's true that Word 2000's Save as Web Page conversion introduced =
> some
> > > shonky syntax. But that's all gone in the 2003 save as XML =
> functionality.
> > > What you get is pretty much what you always got in RTF, a complete
> > > description of the doc with content and formatting closely =
> juxtaposed,
> > > except that it's now expressed in XML. The 'close juxtaposition' =
> makes it
> > a
> > > bit laborious to step around all the formatting tags (when XSLT
> > processing),
> > > but it's quite doable.
> > >
> > > Fact number three: INTERNET EXPLORER AND NOTEPAD ARE ALL YOU NEED TO =
> DO
> > XML
> > > Well, if we're talking 'real world' then it's unlikely that you'd =
> limit
> > > yourself to these. I guess my point is to urge writers such as =
> Elizabeth
> > who
> > > are wondering what the go is with XML to start experimenting. The =
> outlay
> > > isn't financial it's time spent learning the standards, namely XML, =
> XSLT
> > and
> > > CSS/HTML. XSLT is the most difficult of these but by no means the
> > proverbial
> > > rocket science. I'd rate it about 60% the difficulty of VBA.
> > >
> > > Is it worth it? There will always be a fair degree of subjectivity =
> in that
> > > assessment but I'm confident that the coming together of public =
> standards
> > > and Microsofts's implementations in IE and Office means that these =
> skills
> > > will increasingly become 'core' for techwriters.
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > > the operative word in Elizabeth's question is 'strict'.
> > > Forgive me for chasing the train well after it's departed the =
> station. But
> > > following on from last week's discussion re Word & Frame and 'font
> > fondling'
> > > vs structured and all that, I (as unabashed XML proselytizer) feel I =
> have
> > to
> > > draw attention to a couple of facts.
> > >
> > > First is this: YOU DO NOT NEED A DTD TO RUN XML
> > > Sorry about the caps, but it's such a widespread misconception that =
> the
> > > contrary is true. Certainly if you want to validate the XML file =
> then you
> > > must have a DTD (or other rules file). But XML has so much to offer =
> apart
> > > from validation that it's a shame to see techwriters dismissing it =
> on
> > > account of a complication that isn't relevant to 90% of the work =
> that they
> > > do. Sure if you're in Bill Hall's situation (Defence, stringent =
> content
> > > control, high volumes) then you'll be buying into the full =
> catastrophe.
> > But
> > > others should be aware that XML has introduced (as a qualification =
> to the
> > > stricter, more complex & powerful SGML) what could be described as =
> an
> > 'entry
> > > level grammar' . The so called rules of WELL-FORMEDNESS prescribe a =
> very
> > > simple structure that a document must have in order to be =
> processable by
> > an
> > > XML aware application.
> > >
> > > This fact qualifies the following Mike Buckler statements.
> > >
> > > Authoring XML/SGML is definitely slower. There are several reasons.
> > >
> > > 1) Using a DTD as complex as Docbook requires many hours of study.
> > > True, but why a DTD? And even if you're using one, why DocBook. My =
> point
> > is
> > > that the questions should be put - there are of course good reasons =
> for
> > > both, in some circumstances.
> > >
> > > 2) The current crop of XML/SGML aware tools are not particularly =
> user
> > > friendly.
> > > This is off the present topic but I'd have to differ again: XML Spy =
> is the
> > > goods IMHO; I can't comment on others 'cause I haven't seriously =
> tried
> > them
> > > (no need to :-)
> > >
> > > 3) If the DTD doesn't fit the type of document exactly, then you can
> > > spend as much time revising the DTD and style rules as actually
> > > writing the document.
> > > As for 1 above. And Spy (and other tools) will reverse engineer a =
> DTD from
> > > an XML document.
> > >
> > > 4) Things like tables do not fit into the classic XML/SGML model. =
> This
> > > is where presentation (column and row layout) comes into play and
> > > messes up the whole point of using XML/SGML in the first place.
> > > I'm at a loss to understand where this comment is coming from, but =
> venture
> > > the following. I suspect that Mike has formed his opinion under the
> > > influence of DocBook. DocBook is a very rich DTD and will save lots =
> of DTD
> > > developers lots of work over the long term. But its default table =
> model is
> > > CALS which (I believe) is of longstanding use in the =
> defence/aerospace
> > SGML
> > > community. CALS is somewhat more complex than the much more widely
> > > understood HTML model, and translation between the two is less than
> > > straightforward (but no more than a few hours work for a competent =
> XSLT,
> > > Perl, whatever, scripter).
> > >
> > > But for most techwriters most of the time this is all pretty =
> esoteric.
> > There
> > > is no 'classic model'. Describe your table as you would in HTML and =
> worry
> > > about more complex models as and when the need arises.
> > >
> > > The current hype around XML is mainly to do with data interchange
> > > between application that do data processing. For example an =
> insurance
> > > claim form where a set number of fields must be completed in order =
> to
> > > create a "valid document".
> > >
> > > I don't know that the hype is quite current (I thought it peaked a =
> couple
> > of
> > > years back, but maybe that's just me) - but the distinction between =
> data
> > > centric and document centric XML is important. It's true that most =
> of the
> > > XML development focus through the e-commerce period has been on data
> > centric
> > > forms such as Mike cites. But SGML was designed for narrative style
> > > documents and XML is only slightly less capable in that regard. For =
> myself
> > > I've spent a good deal of time figuring out the XSLT necessary to =
> navigate
> > > narrative style doc structures, wondering all the while what the =
> much
> > > vaunted implementation of XML in Word would mean. Well now that it's =
> here
> > > (in beta) I can say that the good news (and fact number two in this =
> little
> > > spiel) is
> > >
> > > WORD 2003'S XML FUNCTIONALITY IS NOT PROPRIETARY
> > > How so? Because the standards bar is actually quite low. As I've =
> pointed
> > out
> > > earlier an XML doc need only conform with well-formedness rules to =
> 'be'
> > XML.
> > > It's true that Word 2000's Save as Web Page conversion introduced =
> some
> > > shonky syntax. But that's all gone in the 2003 save as XML =
> functionality.
> > > What you get is pretty much what you always got in RTF, a complete
> > > description of the doc with content and formatting closely =
> juxtaposed,
> > > except that it's now expressed in XML. The 'close juxtaposition' =
> makes it
> > a
> > > bit laborious to step around all the formatting tags (when XSLT
> > processing),
> > > but it's quite doable.
> > >
> > > Fact number three: INTERNET EXPLORER AND NOTEPAD ARE ALL YOU NEED TO =
> DO
> > XML
> > > Well, if we're talking 'real world' then it's unlikely that you'd =
> limit
> > > yourself to these. I guess my point is to urge writers such as =
> Elizabeth
> > who
> > > are wondering what the go is with XML to start experimenting. The =
> outlay
> > > isn't financial it's time spent learning the standards, namely XML, =
> XSLT
> > and
> > > CSS/HTML. XSLT is the most difficult of these but by no means the
> > proverbial
> > > rocket science. I'd rate it about 60% the difficulty of VBA.
> > >
> > > Is it worth it? There will always be a degree of subjectivity in =
> that
> > > assessment. But I'm confident that the coming together of public =
> standards
> > > and Microsoft implementations in IE and Office mean that these =
> skills will
> > > increasingly become 'core' for techwriters.
> > >
> > > rgds,
> > > Tony Cusack,
> > > www.textology.com.au
> > >
> > >
> > > **************************************************
> > > To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
> > austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >
> > > To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
> > austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject =
> field.
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to =
> austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > "unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
> > >
> > > To search the austechwriter archives, go to
> > www.freelist.org/archives/austechwriter
> > >
> > > To contact the list administrator, send a message to
> > austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > **************************************************
> >=20
> > **************************************************
> > To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
> > austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >=20
> > To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
> > austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject =
> field.
> >=20
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
> with
> > "unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
> >=20
> > To search the austechwriter archives, go to
> > www.freelist.org/archives/austechwriter
> >=20
> > To contact the list administrator, send a message to
> > austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > **************************************************
> >=20
> > **************************************************
> > To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
> > austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >=20
> > To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
> > austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject =
> field.
> >=20
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
> with
> > "unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
> >=20
> > To search the austechwriter archives, go to
> > www.freelist.org/archives/austechwriter
> >=20
> > To contact the list administrator, send a message to
> > austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > **************************************************
> >=20
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> This email was sent from Netspace Webmail: http://www.netspace.net.au
>
> **************************************************
> To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to =
> austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to =
> austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject =
> field.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
> with "unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
>
> To search the austechwriter archives, go to =
> www.freelist.org/archives/austechwriter
>
> To contact the list administrator, send a message to =
> austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> **************************************************
> **************************************************
> To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
>
> To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelist.org/archives/austechwriter
>
> To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> **************************************************
**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.
To search the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelist.org/archives/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
Other related posts:
