[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
RE: [xsl] Arguments for XSL
Subject: RE: [xsl] Arguments for XSL From: "Robert Koberg" <rob@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 19:36:46 -0700 |
Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:owner-xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Joerg > Heinicke > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 5:23 PM > To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [xsl] Arguments for XSL > > > Two more links: > > http://www.xmlmind.com/xmleditor/ (another WYSIWIG editor) > > http://www.xopus.org (WYSIWYG XML editing in the browser) I don't understand why people always say 'use Xopus' ?? Is it because they say they are Open Source? I think it does a disservice. The Open Source version is so buggy I can't use it. I have not tried the expensive licensed version. Has anybody had real success using Xopus? Can average users use it? Plus their business model seems strange to say the least. Last I checked they offered the OS version, and if you want to pay several thousand US$ you can get a 'less buggy' closed source version... -Rob > > Regards, > > Joerg > > Jeni Tennison wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > > >>I've spent considerable time setting up an architecture using XML > >>and XSL in order to produce a help-system for one of our software > >>products. I feel using this system is much better than using a > >>WYSIWYG editor because it allows the writer to concentrate on > >>content and not on formatting. Formatting can be done by a different > >>person or at a different time via XSL style-sheets. > >> > >>I've pitched this idea to my manager and he likes it but when we > >>sent the whole package of to our head-office abroad for translation > >>into different languages, they didn't like it. They prefer using a > >>WYSIWYG editor (specifically ROBOHELP). > >> > >>My gut feel is XML is better even tho a WYSIWYG editor allows you to > >>see results immediately without compiling or anything. > > > > > > Aside from the reasons you've already stated, XML (with XSLT) is a > > good idea because: > > > > 1. If the XML is structured well, you can perform automated checks > > on the content of the help, for example to make sure that every > > page has a link on it. > > > > 2. You can convert the same content to many formats -- HTML, > > PDF printed materials (via XSL-FO), eBook format and so on -- > > fairly easily. > > > > On the WYSIWYG side, I've recently been converted to XMetaL as a way > > of editing XML documents in a WYSIWYG fashion. Just because you're > > using XML doesn't necessarily mean you can't edit the documents > > easily and see what they're going to eventually look like. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jeni > > > > --- > > Jeni Tennison > > http://www.jenitennison.com/ > > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Arguments for XSL, Joerg Heinicke | Thread | Re: [xsl] Arguments for XSL, Antonio Gallardo Riv |
Re: [xsl] How to pass on xml inform, Joerg Heinicke | Date | RE: [xsl] Usage of transformNodeToO, Nirmala R |
Month |