... | ... | @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ However, recognizing the limitations here actually provides us a way forward. Ra |
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed only if we do *as little as possible* in changing the representation of the data, from Word's own obscure structures, into something relatively more legible and tractable, will we have a process that will be as transparent as we need it to be, end to end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So far so good - but what will that format actually be? It is not hard to envision what it would look like. It would differ from the Word source data in being 'idiomatic' with respect to markup structures most especially idioms related to inline markup. But instead of using the obscure and impenetrable Word vocabulary, it would (again) use either a standard or made-for-purpose vocabulary. The difference would be that it would translate renditional , maybe looking something like this:
|
|
|
So far so good - but what will that format actually be? It is not hard to envision what it would look like. It would differ from the Word source data in being 'idiomatic' with respect to markup structures most especially idioms related to inline markup. But instead of using the obscure and impenetrable Word vocabulary, it would (again) use either a standard or made-for-purpose vocabulary. The difference would be that it would translate what we actually see in the Word, whether it be "semantic" (that is, arbitrary labels such as we have with Word Styles) or merely renditional or presentational, maybe looking something like this:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- ` <b>Gene Roddenberry's <i>Star Trek</i></b>` (HTML)
|
|
|
- `<b>Gene Roddenberry's <i>Star Trek</i></b>` (DITA)
|
... | ... | |