Hi Meg, I think you're confusing "pure" with valid and "impure" with proprietary. A file can adhere to the XML standard without being valid against any particular DTD or schema, and being invalid against any content model doesn't mean it's not adhering to the XML standard. I shy away from "industry standard" as a description of a kind of information. DocBook and DITA are standards, yes, but finding the industry is the hard part. The cool digital video editors the kids use these days use XML to keep clips and transitions straight, and the XML is not DITA or DocBook. Microsoft Office uses XML as a storage format, and Microsoft would never use a public content model. Adobe uses custom XML as in interchange format for InDesign. One could argue that because many more people use Microsoft Word than DocBook and DITA (and, I suppose InDesign) put together, Microsoft's schema is the technical documentation industry standard. I wouldn't be the one, but numbers are compelling.
As far as customizing public standards, I say have at it. Why should anyone settle for something that doesn't suit their needs exactly? Let's face it, public standards are built to accommodate everything, and one size fits all really means it fits nobody well. Clothing off the rack should be tailored. Nobody uses the format templates shipped with FrameMaker without customizing them. The big selling point of standards, after the word "free," is interoperability, but I don't see that as a benefit. Macy's doesn't tell Gimbels, so what value is there in them being able to share information? Departments within companies shouldn't go off on their own, but it isn't a problem if the whole company does. Kevin >Just to add to the mix. I'm noticing also that companies, >irregardless of tool, customize their XML in some way that makes it >become 'unpure'. > >The files that I authored in Epic, that I thought should have been >very close to the open source version of XML, where unreadable by >the open source compiler. I had nothing fancy, just a heading, and >a couple of paragraphs. > >I find it facinating. And it feels like there is the potential for >some sort of fancy doctoral study on this sort of thing. How open >source/industry standard things become customized and particular to >a company or group of people. DocBook vs DITA included. Both are >XML, but o, how different they are. > >-meg > > > > >Message: 1 >Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:09:51 -0600 >From: Jan Whitacre <jwhit15 at verizon.net> >Subject: XML Output from FrameMaker not Pure XML? > I was told that the XML output from FrameMaker was not ?pure XML,?...that it >adds some kind of FrameMaker tagging. > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >You are currently subscribed to Framers as kevinf at dim.com. > >Send list messages to framers at lists.frameusers.com. > >To unsubscribe send a blank email to >framers-unsubscribe at lists.frameusers.com >or visit http://lists.frameusers.com/mailman/options/framers/kevinf%40dim.com > >Send administrative questions to listadmin at frameusers.com. Visit >http://www.frameusers.com/ for more resources and info.
