And of course they are viewing the domain largely through the
For example, PG and DP need a vocabulary for discussingthe representation of book contents that is familiar, preciseenough, and comprehensive enough to discuss how theywill represent the book and how PG will interpret theirrepresentation.The common language I would expect woutd includeparagraphs, headings, chapters, poetry, emphasis,tables, illustrations, captions, viewing devices (screencapabilities and controls), ebook identification, acquisition,distribution, storage, maintenance, ... These are allconcepts that have roughly similar meaning to bothsides. And you need to agree on the scope and workflowin which you mutually participate; and have a roughlygood idea what the participation feels like to each other.When the conversation instead devolves around markupand divs and floats and margins and RCS, you no longerare discussing the problem domain, nor are you usingvocabulary that is equally useful and meaningful toboth of you.