not guiprep, but guiguts. On your side you have gutcheck etc., which they understand fairly well - better than you understand theirs - but now gutcheck etc. is no longer even close to sufficient; where it used to be the entire canon. On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:52 PM, don kretz <dakretz@gmail.com> wrote:
And of course they are viewing the domain largely through the tools they use for their work; which unfortunately creates a little world of its own that they must train into without much transferable knowledge or skill; and which I think people at PG are completely unfamiliar with. But that's how they view the problem domain. If they make guiprep happy, and see a document on the only output medium available to them for validation (i.e. the browser screen), they have no way to appreciate or adjust to your objections. Their world is A-OK.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:48 PM, don kretz <dakretz@gmail.com> wrote:
For example, PG and DP need a vocabulary for discussing the representation of book contents that is familiar, precise enough, and comprehensive enough to discuss how they will represent the book and how PG will interpret their representation.
The common language I would expect woutd include paragraphs, headings, chapters, poetry, emphasis, tables, illustrations, captions, viewing devices (screen capabilities and controls), ebook identification, acquisition, distribution, storage, maintenance, ... These are all concepts that have roughly similar meaning to both sides. And you need to agree on the scope and workflow in which you mutually participate; and have a roughly good idea what the participation feels like to each other.
When the conversation instead devolves around markup and divs and floats and margins and RCS, you no longer are discussing the problem domain, nor are you using vocabulary that is equally useful and meaningful to both of you.