Re: Interesting XML discussion from TechWr-L [long]

[Chris Despopoulos <cud -at- arrakis -dot- es>]

Dan Emory wrote:
[snip...  Remark that only coercion works with Adobe, and it was coercion from
the top 10 that gave us the enhancements in 5.5...  Question - what did the top
10 demand?]

>
> I didn't say they got everything they wanted, but it took coercion
> to force Adobe to give them anything at all.

What I'm interested in knowing is, if coercion works, what *did* the top 10 get
out of it?  That may lead to some clues re how to go about communicating with
Adobe.  For example, it would be good to say someting like, "The following 10
companies (insert names here) demanded the following features (insert features
here).  This time we're asking for features that will offer Adobe similar
advantages...  If you just listen to us now, you can avoid the embarrasment and
hassle of having the top 10 comming back with more *demands*."  Just for the
sake of discussion, I think it would be helpful to have an idea of who the
companies were, and what they demanded.

>

[snip...  Between 5.5.2 and 5.5.6, a group of Frame Experts asked for
enhancements, but got none]

>
>
> All I was pointing out that even 40 or 50 people from the US
> and Europe, most of them long-time Frame users who could
> qualify as experts, who arrived (more or less) at a consensus
> on what was needed got nothing from Adobe.
> ========================================

I'm saying, asking for features in a patch is hopeless, and you shouldn't be
disappointed.  Asking for features in a full release is another matter.

>

[snip...  just blather from cud]

>
> We need to get real about what Adobe is doing with FrameMaker.
> They' (I mean Warnock, Mark Hilton, et al) are not willing to publicly
> commit to a long-term, phased development project which will
> result in giving users what they need in order to continue using
> the product. They won't even publicly commit to fixing nasty
> bugs in the next release. Most of us know nothing about what
> features the next release will have until it hits the street. Notice
> that, for V6.0, there were hardly any leaks that got out even
> during Beta testing. And we certainly have nothing but educated
> guesses about any Adobe strategy extending beyond the next
> release.

This seems standard for commercial software companies.  Heck, there have been
class-action suits brought against companies that hinted they would release
features they later found they couldn't deliver.  It's no wonder they're
defensive about releasing future product information.  As for commitment, the
only commitment that amounts to a hill of beans is working code.  If Maker
suddenly appears with an XML parser and Unicode, I will take that as a
commitment to XML.  And I believe the big players will, too.

>
>
> You, Chris, are saying you somehow know that Adobe has
> a multi-release development strategy for developing the XML
> capability, thus you whittle down your wish list and say
> "Just give me this much in the next release and I'll be happy,
> even though it's not enough."

I'm saying I read a second hend reference to a claim from some Adobe Mktg
people at a giant trade show in Germany that Adobe is going to have Maker
round-trip XML.  Let me qualify that...  I'm saying that's what I think I
read.  As for multi-release strategy, that is what software development is all
about.  I'm saying I trust that IF real XML gets into the product, AND Adobe
makes money as a result, THEN more XML improvements are inevitable. That's how
software development works.

>
>
> I say that until Adobe publicly commits to a multi-release
> development strategy for FM+SGML we must demand all
> the functionality that is required to make FM+SGML a
> viable XML tool worthy of serious consideration.
>
> Acceptable responses from Adobe to such demands might be:
>
> 1. No way Jose. (that at least tells us to look elsewhere)
>
> 2. We'll commit to a long-term development strategy
> that will lead to all the functionality you're asking for.
>
> Unacceptable responses from Adobe would include:
>
> 1. We cannot commit to giving you anything, but
> maybe we'll try to give you some of it. But you
> won't know what, if anything, we're going to do
> until the next release hits the street, and we're not
> about to tell you when that will be.

Well then you are bound to consider their response unacceptable, because this
is the only response they can give, and still protect themselves from sharks.
Like I say, the only real commitment is working code.  And the only way to get
an inkling into future plans is to enter into a *dialog* with them.  That means
you must acknowledge their terms of dialog.  Sure, they have the power to just
say no to your demands.  You also have the power to just say no to their
upgrades (as I suggested in an earlier post that met with howls of protest).

The idea of this discussion is to see whether or not Adobe is willing to chime
in with any *dialog*.  It's fair to ask Adobe how their XML strategy is shaping
up.  Does Maker have a place in it?  How does Adobe plan to grow (I hate that
use of the word) their Maker market?  These are questions Boeing asks all the
time, I'm sure.  We will always get second rate answers...  Boeing undoubtedly
signs NDA's before asking this sort of question.  Have you signed an NDA with
Adobe?

Nonetheless, it would be nice to hear what Adobe thinks about XML.  Does Adobe
believe XML represents a significant market today or in the future?  It would
be nice to hear them talk about how Maker customers are expected to work with
XML *today*.  These are fair questions that should not require NDA.

>
>
> 2. The kind of Adobe marketing crap regarding FrameMaker
> that is the only thing we've heard ever since they took the
> product over.
>

[snip...  argument: is API development a good idea?  I think we should save
that for later, or at least make it separate for now]

>
>
> >If Adobe gives me nothing more than Unicode and XML parsing within a
> >year, I can make do until the next release.  That's all I'm saying.
>
> Oh boy if you start from that position with Adobe, you're almost certain
> to get less than that, and no commitment to provide anything more
> in future releases (they won't even say there will be any future releases).

If I get less than that, I will know plenty about their commitment to XML,
won't I?

If you start with demands for everyting, then you'll get no further.  Look,
some enhancement requests that have been out there for a long time are probably
impossible with the current code base.  Otherwise they would have made it in.
Here is another fact of software.  Sure, you can make software to do just about
anything you can imagine, but not necessarily within a business cycle.  The
majority of the software you use exists because a business is making money
selling it.  Not all the features that mean so much to you translate into
revenue for Adobe.  If you face that fact, you will be happier in the long
run.  If you can't live without some of those enhancements, then you need to go
to another product.  Same as Boeing, same as my mother inlaw.

>

[snip...  more blather from cud]

>
>
> Well, I know a little about what went on in Adobe at that time.
> The original V5.5 was an attempt to capture the Japanese market,
> and nothing more. That priority took precedence over fixing bugs
> and inadequate "features" that had been pending for years.

And now we're asking Adobe to capture the XML market, right?  If you think that
is tremendously easier than double-byte support, I hope you think again.  What
are you saying is the main priority for Maker's survival?  XML, or the
"inadequate features that have been pending for years"?  I'm saying XML.  I'm
saying give me a parser and Unicode, and I will have hope that Maker can
survive another two years.  I'm saying that in those two years, we can work
with Adobe to improve the XML support.  I'm saying that if I'm right, and XML
proves to be important to Maker's survival, Adobe will recognize that and
invest more to improve its (yet to come) XML support.

>
>
> And now we have V6.0--the first major new release in over 4 years.
> What do we get? Book-wide commands, that's what, even though
> there are APIs and framescripts already available that will do most
> of them. What else? Why WWP lite, of course. Adobe did the same
> thing in the initial V5.0 release, and it was a total fiasco.

And fixes to PDF Bloat (strongly requested by all), and structured PDF.  Oh,
and the book enhancements were also strongly requested by all.  And BTW, are
you now saying that API and script development is a good idea?

>
>
> ====================
> | Nullius in Verba |
> ====================
> Dan Emory, Dan Emory & Associates
> FrameMaker/FrameMaker+SGML Document Design & Database Publishing
> Voice/Fax: 949-722-8971 E-Mail: danemory -at- primenet -dot- com
> 10044 Adams Ave. #208, Huntington Beach, CA 92646
> ---Subscribe to the "Free Framers" list by sending a message to
> majordomo -at- omsys -dot- com with "subscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.