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>