|
||
Digital Output Options* |
||
|
|
|
Page Image |
|
Good: Fast, cheap, easy, certain of design, integrates well with existing processBad: Not easily improvable, not easily "chunkable," static, hard to index, hard to link to or from, retains page as conceptual model |
|
|
|
"Raw" HTML |
|
Good: Fast, cheap, easy (from WP file), easily indexed by search enginesBad: Usually not pretty, "chunkable" as chapters only, may see higher expectations ("why not better"?) |
|
|
|
Enriched HTML |
|
Good: Fairly easy with minimal investment; easily indexed by outside world; can often be done by typesetters at minimal cost; tailoring for content possible.Bad: May face higher expectations; some learning curve; some unpredictable new challenges; |
|
|
|
XML/SGML |
|
Good: Flexible, extensible, future-enhanceable, self-definingBad: More costly (now), requiring higher quality control, new skill sets |
|
|
|
|
|
* Distribution Medium--as in CDROM vs Web--is ignored as an issue; print, being well established, is also ignored. |
Copyright © 1999 Michael Jensen (mjensen@nas.edu) |