LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for TEI-L Archives


TEI-L Archives

TEI-L Archives


TEI-L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEI-L Home

TEI-L Home

TEI-L  January 1995

TEI-L January 1995

Subject:

Portable Documents: Visit Report

From:

Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Lou Burnard <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 20 Jan 1995 10:43:00 CST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (159 lines)

VISIT REPORT
"Portable documents: Acrobat, SGML and TeX"
Bridewell Theatre, London, 19 Jan 95
 
This joint meeting of the UK TeX Users Group and the BCS Electronic
Publishing Specialist Group attracted a large and mixed audience of
academics, TeX hackers, publishers, and software developers, with
representatives from most UK organizations active in the field of
electronic publishing and document management. I was expecting rather
more disagreement about the relative merits of the various approaches
now available for the creation of portable documents; in the event, the
path of SGML-based righteousness, with appropriate concessions to the
practical merits of PostScript-based systems, was apparently endorsed
by the consensus.
 
First of the seven speakers was David Brailsford from Nottingham
University, who described Adobe's Acrobat as "a de facto industry
standard". His presentation of exactly how the various components of
this product worked together, and could be made to interact with both
LaTeX and SGML, was very clear and refreshingly free of hype. The
choice of PDF (which is effectively a searchable and structured form of
Postscript, in which logical structure and hypertextual links are
preserved along with the imaging information) as an archival format was
a pragmatic one for journals such as EPodd where fidelity to every
detail of presentation was crucial.  The availability of a free Acrobat
reader was also a plus point. He characterized the difficulties of
mapping the logical links of a LaTeX or SGML document on to the
physical links instantiated in a PDF document as a classic case of the
importance of "late binding", and revealed the open secret that
Adobe's free PDF reader would soon be upgraded to recognise and act on
HTML-style anchors. A demonstration of the Acrobat-based electronic
journal project CAJUN is already available online at
http://quill.cs.nott.ac.uk.
 
David Barron, from Southampton, gave an excellent overview of what
exactly is implied by the phrase "portable document".  Documents are not
files, but compound objects, combining text, images, time-based media.
There is a growing awareness that electronic resources should be
regarded as virtual documents, repositories of information from which
many different actual documents may be generated. These developments
all make "portability" (defined as the ability to render documents --
with varying degrees of visual fidelity -- in different hardware or
software environments) very difficult. Portability was of crucial
importance, not only for publishers wishing to distribute in the
electronic medium, and not only for specific user communities wishing
to pool information, but also for all of us. Information available only
in a non-portable electronic form was information at the mercy of
technological change. He cited as portability success stories the
widespread use of PostScript and LaTeX as a distribution medium by the
research community, referring to the Physics preprint library at Los
Alamos as a case where this had now become the normal method of
publication. By contrast, the success of the World Wide Web seemed to
be partly due to its use of a single markup language (HTML) which
effectively takes rendering concerns entirely out of the hands of
authors. From the archival point of view, however, none of the
available standards seemed a natural winner: hypertext was still too
immature a technology, and there were still many intractable problems
in handling multiple fonts and character sets. Professor Barron
concluded with a brief summary of the merits of SGML as providing a
formal, verifiable  and portable definition for a document's structure,
mentioning in passing that Southampton are developing a TEI-based
document archive with conversion tools going in both directions
betweeen SGML and RTF, and SGML and LaTex. Looking to the future, he saw
the IBM/Apple Opendoc architecture as offering the promise of genuinely
portable dynamic documents, which could be archived in an SGML form once
static.
 
The third speaker of the morning, Jonathan Fine, began by insisting
that the spaces between words were almost as important as the words
themselves.       I felt that he wasted rather a lot of his time on
this point, as he did later on explaining how to pronounce "TeX"
(surely unnecessary for this audience) before finally describing a
product he is developing called "Simsim" (Arabic for sesame, which is a
trademark of British Petroleum we learned).  This appears to be a set of
TeX macros for formatting SGML documents directly, using components of
the ESIS to drive the formatter, but I did not come away with any clear
sense of how his approach differed from that already fairly widely
used elsewhere.
 
Peter Flynn, from University College Cork, did his usual excellent job
of introducing the Wondrous Web World, focussing inevitably on some of
its shortcomings from the wider SGML perspective, while holding out the
promise that there is a real awareness of the need to address them.
What the Web does best, in addition to storage and display of portable
documents, is to provide ways of hypertextually linking them. Its
success raises important and difficult issues about the nature of
publishing in the electronic age: who should control the content and
appearance of documents -- the user, the browser vendor, or the
originator? Publishing on the Web also raises a whole range of
fundamental and so far unresolved problems in the area of intellectual
property rights, despite the availability of effective authentication
and charging mechanisms. He highlighted some  well-known "attitude"
problems -- not only are most existing HTML documents invalid, but
no-one really cares -- and concluded that the availability of better
browsers, capable of handling more sophisticated DTDs, needed to be
combined with better training of the Web community for these to be
resolved.
 
The three remaining presentations, we were told after a somewhat
spartan lunch, would focus on the real world, which seemed a little
harsh on the previous speakers. Geeti Granger from John Wiley described
the effect on a hard-pressed production department of going over to the
use of SGML in the creation of an eight volume Chemical Encyclopaedia.
Her main conclusions appeared to be that it had necessitated more
managerial involvement than anticipated, largely because of the
increased complexity of the production process. She attributed this
partly to the need for document analysis, proper data flow procedures,
progress reports etc., though why these should be a consequence of
using SGML  I did not fully understand. More persuasively, she reported
the difficulty the project had had in finding SGML-aware suppliers, in
designing a DTD in advance of the material it described, in agreeing on
an appropriate level of encoding and in getting good quality typeset
output.
 
Martin Kay, from Elsevier, described in some detail the rationale and
operation of the Computer Aided Production system used for Elsevier's
extensive stable of academic journals. Authors are encouraged to submit
material in a variety of electronic forms, including LaTeX, for which
Elsevier provide a generic style sheet. Other formats are converted and
edited using an inhouse SGML-aware system (apparently implemented in
WordPerfect 5, though I may have misheard this). This uses their own
dtd, based on Majour, with extensions for maths, which seemed to be a
major source of difficulty. Documents will be archived in SGML or PDF
in something called an electronic warehouse, of which no details were
vouchsafed. Both PDF and SGML were seen as entirely appropriate formats
for online journals, CD-ROM and other forms of electronic delivery. The
advantages of SGML lay in its independence of the vagaries of
technological development, and its greater potential. However,
potential benefits always had to be weighed against current costs; like
any other business, Elsevier was not interested in experimentation for
its own sake.
 
The last speaker was Michael Popham, formerly of the SGML Project at
Exeter, and now of the CTI Centre for Textual Studies at Oxford. His
presentation did a fairly thorough demolition job on the popular notion
that there is still not much SGML-aware software in the world, starting
with a useful overview of the SGML context -- the ways in which SGML
tools might fit into particular parts of an enterprise -- and then
listing a number of key products organized by category. It was nice to
hear the names of so many real SGML products (auto-taggers, authoring
aids, page layout systems, transformation tools, document management
systems, browsers and parsers) being aired, after a long day obsessed
by Acrobat and LaTex. He concluded with a useful list of places  where
up-to-date product information can be found, and a reminder that the
field is rapidly expanding, with new tools appearing all the time.
 
The day concluded with an informal panel session, onto which I was
press ganged, which effectively prevented me from taking notes, but
also gave me the chance to promote the recently-published DynaText
version of the TEI Guidelines, which I did shamelessly. I also remember
Malcolm Clark asking, tongue firmly in cheek, why everyone couldn't
just use Word, and being somewhat agreeably surprised by the number of
people in the audience who were able to tell him the answer, and in no
uncertain terms. Other topics addressed included auto-tagging, whether
maths and formulae should be encoded descriptively or presentationally,
whether Microsoft will still be around in the next century, and whether
we would ever learn how to format documents for electronic presentation
as well as we could on paper.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994
June 1994
May 1994
April 1994
March 1994
February 1994
January 1994
December 1993
November 1993
October 1993
September 1993
August 1993
July 1993
June 1993
May 1993
April 1993
March 1993
February 1993
January 1993
December 1992
November 1992
October 1992
September 1992
August 1992
July 1992
June 1992
May 1992
April 1992
March 1992
February 1992
January 1992
December 1991
November 1991
October 1991
September 1991
August 1991
July 1991
June 1991
May 1991
April 1991
March 1991
February 1991
January 1991
December 1990
November 1990
October 1990
September 1990
August 1990
July 1990
June 1990
April 1990
March 1990
February 1990
January 1990

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager