Article View: comp.text.sgml
Article #372Re: desktop publishing vs. the old fashioned way
From: David Herron
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:19
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:19
29 lines
1760 bytes
1760 bytes
bernhold@qtp.ufl.edu (David E. Bernholdt) wrote: > Do publishing houses (the kind that generate paper output :-) use SGML > yet? Obviously they're going to use some kind of markup language when > they put the document into production. Is it likely to be SGML? Will > it ever be? Can you ask a publisher for their book/journal/whatever > DTD in order to write your document using it? My guess: NO. Source for guess: The most recent issue of MicroTimes (a free biweekly newspaper focussed on the computer industry and available (only?) in Silicon Valley) has a longish interview with (name?) Seybold. It's an interesting interview with lots of interesting things said, but there are two telling points: 1. The paper pushers do not see how they can sell a purely electronic version of a book. That is, they see their job primarily as pushing paper, not pushing information. 2. The publishing houses are (*STILL*!) generally using proprietary document systems. He said there were exceptions to both, fortunately .. <- David Herron <david@twg.com> (work) <david@davids.mmdf.com> (home) <- <- During the '80s Usenet's mantra was: "Not all the world's a VAX". <- During the '90s I hope it becomes: "Not all the world's DOS (ick)".
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct12.201615.26183@twg.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!eco.twg.com!twg.com!newsShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.text.sgml Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!eco.twg.com!twg.com!news From: "David Herron" <david@twg.com> Subject: Re: desktop publishing vs. the old fashioned way Message-ID: <1992Oct12.201615.26183@twg.com> Sensitivity: Personal Encoding: 24 TEXT , 4 TEXT Sender: news@twg.com (USENET News System) Conversion: Prohibited Organization: The Wollongong Group, Inc., Palo Alto, CA Conversion-With-Loss: Prohibited Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:19:28 GMT Lines: 29