Talk:Single-source publishing

Gibberish[edit]

--195.19.48.219 11:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)kyaw myat moe[reply]

POV discussion[edit]

I've attached an NPOV (neutral point of view) tag to this article because I think it offers little besides a personal opinion piece.

It consists essentially of a single sentence defining single source publishing, followed by two brief examples. I don't think this an adequate basis for an article.

The last sentence is particularly questionable: the statement that single source publishing "can be difficult to achieve without the use of some kind of content management system" is an unsubstantiated opinion. I can cite expert opinions that content management systems are a bad idea and that you can do single source publishing with other (less expensive) tools.

Finally, the last two External Links (to the authorit.com and xmetal.com sites) are spam and should be removed.

I'm not convinced that the term 'single source publishing' is worthy of an article outside of marketing literature. If it is, it should adhere to NPOV policy "an article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source." For good examples in the same field, see Technical_writing and Information_architecture.

Denisbradford 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I disagree strongly. It's not a lengthy article, nor an in-depth one. However, this is a topic I've been interested in for over a year, and didn't find the name of until today. Even a short bit of write-up on this subject is a great start. Don't kill the article; if you have something better, then IMPROVE it. -- Jel.

I also disagree. This is an important topic, and it deserves to be improved, not deleted. As for being NPOV, the fixes that have already been made seem to move it in that direction. --KellyCoinGuy 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I made some rather significant additions to the article. I hope nobody gets too bent out of shape about the references to FrameMaker, Quadralay, etc. It's just that I've had some fairly serious success with some of these tools in the past, and pointing people in the right direction just seems like the right thing to do in this case. KellyCoinGuy 06:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations[edit]

Once again, we have a tech comm article written by a SME who takes his/her own knowledge for granted. Aside from the fact that the general readership of Wikipedia won't understand much of the article, it also lacks inline citations. I know the information provided is true (though not written with the audience in mind - one of the single most importan rules!) but the reader has no way of verifying that. Unless anyone objects, I'm leaning toward deletion of the current body and rewriting it from scratch - with inline citations. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for future expansion[edit]

At some point it would be nice to see the supposed differences and similarities between single source publishing and multi-channel publishing explored.
One important note: all info added needs to be encyclopedic (not how-to format), and based on reliable sources readers can look up per Wikipedia:Verifiability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

The criticism section could do with a better explanation of why the indexes are (allegedly) a problem. As someone who worked with a single source authoring system for years and was responsible for the translation of the documents in the system, this was never an issue. Part of the process of translating a document includes the process of translating index entries (according to context). We did not automate any part of the index generation - fully automating any form of translation is always a bad idea anyway. It did however mean maintaining separate indexes per language, which of course may be something that some authoring software does not support (presumably software where translation was never considered).

80.245.197.109 (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

Isn't this concept way earlier than what is said here? WinHelp (1990) and XML (1996) are cited without a single mention of GML (1969) or SGML (first draft in 1983, official ISO document in 1986), which were clearly designed for single-source publishing. Nowhere man (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]