You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I agree that code-like writing is very powerful. No disagreement.
"Only languages and toolchains that offer you inline dynamism — and here I mean DITA as much as
AsciiDoc or RST — actually enhance the power of your writing."
I was doing inline dynamism with unstructured FrameMaker, especially since FrameMaker was scriptable through FrameScript and then later its own, internal scripting language. None of this invalidates what's written, but I want to call attention to the fact that even 1990s-era unstructured FrameMaker could do code-like inline dynamism.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I think it's really unlikely that I'm going to acknowledge FrameMaker as a valid docs-as-code tool, or even a valid tool at all. I talked to the Adobe folks at their table at LavaCon a couple years ago. They seemed disappointed when I told them I did not have access to a CD-ROM to install their demo software :-D. But your point is solid. Thanks for the history lesson!
I agree that code-like writing is very powerful. No disagreement.
"Only languages and toolchains that offer you inline dynamism — and here I mean DITA as much as
AsciiDoc or RST — actually enhance the power of your writing."
I was doing inline dynamism with unstructured FrameMaker, especially since FrameMaker was scriptable through FrameScript and then later its own, internal scripting language. None of this invalidates what's written, but I want to call attention to the fact that even 1990s-era unstructured FrameMaker could do code-like inline dynamism.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: