Hi Mattias, Mattias wrote:
>Well, UML is one thing, there the "presentation" is actual the content >itself. But I still can't see an application where it wouldn't do just to >be able to preview your writings visually, I mean content needs to conform >to some standard most often, if the headlines look different for each >article how does that look? This falls under the scope of what I've said. "Structure the minimum that you need to structure regarding your context and objectives, nothing more nothing less". Mattias wrote: >Do they want it or don't they know any alternatives? If you sat down and >properly explained the advantages both in terms of saving time & money as >well as future potential I think most customers would chose it, I see no >reason not to. I do, I do (I explain to them why they need to structure information to better manage it in a computer regarding their business context and objectives). The problem is not the future is the present in most cases. This is a phenomenon that happens in anything that you may discuss (future can be anything that ones imagination leads to but it may be or not reality). I for one prefer discussing things in the realm of "cost effectiveness" regarding ones context and objectives not concepts when I talk with my customers. I don't see that structuring information is the solution for human needs but machines if we speak in such a pure conceptual framework. I can give you one example, this list. Can you imagine if the managers decided that they needed to enforce structure to the further extent of (Sender, Receiver, Carbon Copies, Subject) n-ary structure? Would I be here sitting posting things to you? Of course I could sit down and think how to structure posts in a better way to encompass the needs of displaying it in a Mobile Phone, ITV Browsers, Paper, etc etc. Further more, I could structure it in better ways in order to automate classification and to provide better navigation facilities. For instance: If you note I usually put you comments in the following manner: [Poster] wrote: >[Text] >[Text] I could turn it into: <Poster name="Mattias Konradsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]" referredPost ="XXXXXX" /> <comment> [DOCBOOK formatted text] (humm probably not because I just have cut and pasted it, I would probably be not well formed according to the DOC Book Schema </comment> </poster> Then one could render references to other posts in anyway the managers of the list wanted ... Isn't this wonderful ;) Now try to enforce this on this list to it's full extent (don't stop with "post" references) Mattias wrote: ><headline>XML rocks</headline> or <div >style="font:family:bold;color:black;font-size:16px">XML Rocks</div> Yep this is better from a conceptual point of view regarding a specific need, but if you adopt a holistic view of CM and Presentation/Content Format Separation encompassing all the different usages of information you soon realize that this solution might not suffice most of the current needs within the scope of cost effectiveness. I hope that I've provided an example were that is evident. Mattias wrote (it's faster to write this way :) > Isn't that missing the point? Authors shouldn't care less about how > their content is *rendered*, they should care about how their content > is structured and what it means :) I think getting from the "how it > looks" mindset to the "what it means" is one of the most important > factors of the advancements of CMS's > > best regards > --- > Mattias Konradsson I agree with you when you say: > I think getting from the "how it > looks" mindset to the "what it means" is one of the most important > factors of the advancements of CMS's But I don't agree with: >Authors shouldn't care less about how their content is *rendered* I understand this as "how it looks". Yes it's true if one views this issues from a satellite photogram (conceptual thinking), but once you magnify you'll notice that presentation is usually intertwined with speech dynamically (this usually how our brain work). Current studies show that our brain is driven by emotions provoked by human senses. Our ability to reason and expose intelligent thoughts is greatly affected by it. My post is getting theoretical. I'm just trying to show that there are some conceptual reasons why architectures such as the one you are enforcing in .... ><headline>XML rocks</headline> or <div >style="font:family:bold;color:black;font-size:16px">XML Rocks</div> ... might not work effectively in such generically contexts as you seam to imply. Best regards, Nuno Lopes Independent Consultant. -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
