LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for EAD Archives


EAD Archives

EAD Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EAD Home

EAD Home

EAD  December 1996

EAD December 1996

Subject:

Re: Word Processing Software

From:

Wendell Piez <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Encoded Archival Description List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 2 Dec 1996 11:43:11 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (76 lines)

The responses to the query about the suitability of Word vs. WordPerfect
for preparing SGML seem to be falling into two threads: (1) a discussion
about various tools, such as WordPerfect 7.0 with its SGML support, or
MicroStar's Near and Far add-on to Word, and (2) a discussion about the
general principles of composition for application-independent descriptive
markup (a fancy way of saying what SGML is). Most posts are now leaning
towards (1); Nick Finke's very helpful remarks tend to (2). (1) is very
important, and this forum is an ideal place for us to get tips on what's
available. Then there's (2)....

In a sense, the "word processor" is misnamed: Word or WordPerfect is
really a WYSIWYG print engine: it's designed to take or create electronic
text and give you strong on-screen control of how it will look when
printed. (For those who don't recall the days of DOS and the Word
Processor wars of the 80's, WYSIWYG is "What You See Is What You Get.")
But this is only one way in which we want to automate the "processing" of
words, as becomes abundantly clear as we work to unchain ourselves from
the shackles of the application programs and take better advantage of the
computer's abilities to handle structured data. Shifting from a
perspective which centers on the _appearance_ of the text (such as a
well-designed layout can give you), to one which centers on the elements
and structures of the text itself as data (which is what descriptive
markup gives you), is what SGML is all about.

A strong WYSIWYG editor, which allows you to prettify your text without
concern for the underlying data structures, can actually be a hindrance to
clear and consistent descriptive markup if you don't yet see "through" the
screen into the code -- which is why those experienced with SGML will advise
you to use it only with chastity and forebearance. Think of it as a plain
ASCII editor, perhaps with some facilities for "styles" (which, as
pseudo-descriptive markup, are susceptible to mass conversion into SGML
tags). WordPerfect's relatively accessible formatting codes -- which
descend from a time when WordPerfect was the top-dog print engine for a
_line_ printer (remember dot matrix? daisy wheels?), and so has always
treated its data as a _stream_ -- make it somewhat more amenable than
Word to the logic of text-stream markup such as SGML, and so WP is ahead
by a few months in its support.

WordPerfect is not yet capable of true rules-based editing, however. (I
can't speak of Near and Far's support of Word, but I'd be very surprised
if it is either.) I refer to the capacity not only to check your tagging
against the DTD to see that your instance is valid (i.e. that your current
document checks out against the abstract model of what EAD allows), which
WP does nicely, but rather the active constraint of the whole editing
environment to offer you only the currently legal options. (As is, the
editor can tell you what's allowed, but it can't prevent you from doing
what's not.) This is a weakness of WordPerfect, in comparison to SoftQuad
Author/Editor, say, as an SGML creation tool, especially for those new to
the art of markup. This is perhaps made up for by the fact that it's a
more powerful tool for dealing with documents already created and
formatted and for -- who'd have thought? -- printing.

For those beginning with SGML and daunted by complex tag sets, the analogy
to HTML may be helpful (if you have experience with the web). Although
the tag set may be somewhat more elaborate, EAD will be more easily
applied to most finding aids than HTML would be, and will give you far
more functionality (but you've heard that). But many of the practical
problems of conversion will be the same and are handled the same way.

Where the analogy does _not_ help is in enabling us to shift our thinking
fully to the data-centered (versus presentation-centered) approach. (HTML
is still presentational encoding, as opposed to EAD.)

When we have truly native editing environments, not just add-ons to
popular print engines, creating a finding aid from scratch will be much
easier, if not such a fascinating challenge. It may look more like database
entry with forms, rather than the composition of "pages." While this won't
help us with the daunting problem of legacy conversion, it will
dramatically help with our re-education about these new/old information
structures. One of the most interesting thing for archivists will be to
look at all those old finding aids as themselves artifacts of information
technology and the mind-set(s) they reflect and enforce.

Wendell Piez
Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

March 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
December 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager