not guiprep, but guiguts.<div><br></div><div>On your side you have gutcheck etc., which they understand fairly well -</div><div>better than you understand theirs - but now gutcheck etc. is no longer</div><div>even close to sufficient; where it used to be the entire canon.<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:52 PM, don kretz <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:dakretz@gmail.com">dakretz@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
And of course they are viewing the domain largely through the<div>tools they use for their work; which unfortunately creates a little</div><div>world of its own that they must train into without much transferable</div><div>

knowledge or skill; and which I think people at PG are completely</div><div>unfamiliar with. But that&#39;s how they view the problem domain. If</div><div>they make guiprep happy, and see a document on the only output</div>

<div>medium available to them for validation (i.e. the browser screen),</div><div>they have no way to appreciate or adjust to your objections. Their</div><div>world is A-OK.<div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 6:48 PM, don kretz <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:dakretz@gmail.com" target="_blank">dakretz@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">For example, PG and DP need a vocabulary for discussing<div>the representation of book contents that is familiar, precise</div>

<div>enough, and comprehensive enough to discuss how they</div><div>will represent the book and how PG will interpret their</div>
<div>representation.</div><div><br></div><div>The common language I would expect woutd include</div><div>paragraphs, headings, chapters, poetry, emphasis,</div><div>tables, illustrations, captions, viewing devices (screen</div>


<div>capabilities and controls), ebook identification, acquisition,</div><div>distribution, storage, maintenance, ... These are all</div><div>concepts that have roughly similar meaning to both</div><div>sides. And you need to agree on the scope and workflow</div>


<div>in which you mutually participate; and have a roughly</div><div>good idea what the participation feels like to each other.</div><div><br></div><div>When the conversation instead devolves around markup</div><div>and divs and floats and margins and RCS, you no longer</div>


<div>are discussing the problem domain, nor are you using</div><div>vocabulary that is equally useful and meaningful to</div><div>both of you.</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>