<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Article: Choosing an XML Schema</title>
	<atom:link href="http://managingwriters.com/2008/04/11/article-choosing-an-xml-schema/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://managingwriters.com/2008/04/11/article-choosing-an-xml-schema/</link>
	<description>A Real-World Guide to Managing Technical Documentation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:41:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: rlhamilton</title>
		<link>http://managingwriters.com/2008/04/11/article-choosing-an-xml-schema/#comment-60</link>
		<dc:creator>rlhamilton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:11:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rlhamilton.wordpress.com/?p=75#comment-60</guid>
		<description>Michael,

Thanks for the kind words.  Regarding localization, I should have at least mentioned it.  It turns out that both DITA and DocBook have the essential elements covered, including:

- Unicode support
- Support for multiple languages in one document (both use
  the lang or xml:lang attribute on pretty much any element).
- Support for standard translations of generated text (i.e.,
  when the transforms insert the word &quot;Chapter&quot; in a chapter
  heading, that word will be translated based on the lang
  attribute).
- Support for localized indexes.

Overall, I think there&#039;s no real difference in terms of base capabilities.  I suspect the real determinant will be how well your translators can deal with the schema you choose, though any good translator ought to be able to handle either.

Hope that helps</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael,</p>
<p>Thanks for the kind words.  Regarding localization, I should have at least mentioned it.  It turns out that both DITA and DocBook have the essential elements covered, including:</p>
<p>- Unicode support<br />
- Support for multiple languages in one document (both use<br />
  the lang or xml:lang attribute on pretty much any element).<br />
- Support for standard translations of generated text (i.e.,<br />
  when the transforms insert the word &#8220;Chapter&#8221; in a chapter<br />
  heading, that word will be translated based on the lang<br />
  attribute).<br />
- Support for localized indexes.</p>
<p>Overall, I think there&#8217;s no real difference in terms of base capabilities.  I suspect the real determinant will be how well your translators can deal with the schema you choose, though any good translator ought to be able to handle either.</p>
<p>Hope that helps</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://managingwriters.com/2008/04/11/article-choosing-an-xml-schema/#comment-59</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:40:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rlhamilton.wordpress.com/?p=75#comment-59</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your excellent and helpful article on Content Wrangler. Interestingly, you do not mention localization in your comparison.  That is, is either option (DITA or DocBook) superior if you are localizing your content to multiple languages?  Thanks again!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your excellent and helpful article on Content Wrangler. Interestingly, you do not mention localization in your comparison.  That is, is either option (DITA or DocBook) superior if you are localizing your content to multiple languages?  Thanks again!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Earley</title>
		<link>http://managingwriters.com/2008/04/11/article-choosing-an-xml-schema/#comment-57</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Earley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:19:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rlhamilton.wordpress.com/?p=75#comment-57</guid>
		<description>Given your disclosed &quot;bias&quot;, this is a well-balanced, even-handed discussion.  Well done.  Both standards have much to offer, and &quot;religious&quot; debates do little in the way of promoting either, and only confuse prospective adopters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given your disclosed &#8220;bias&#8221;, this is a well-balanced, even-handed discussion.  Well done.  Both standards have much to offer, and &#8220;religious&#8221; debates do little in the way of promoting either, and only confuse prospective adopters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scott Hudson</title>
		<link>http://managingwriters.com/2008/04/11/article-choosing-an-xml-schema/#comment-58</link>
		<dc:creator>Scott Hudson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:39:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rlhamilton.wordpress.com/?p=75#comment-58</guid>
		<description>Dick, thanks so much for the very informative article. We get many questions from clients and prospective clients, and it&#039;s nice to have most of these answered in one place! I&#039;ll definitely be using this article as recommended reading for techdoc folks!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dick, thanks so much for the very informative article. We get many questions from clients and prospective clients, and it&#8217;s nice to have most of these answered in one place! I&#8217;ll definitely be using this article as recommended reading for techdoc folks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

