Jun 252004
 

One of the things that dis­tin­guishes the XML con­fer­ence is the fact we pub­lish pro­ceed­ings that are open to the pub­lic a few months after the event, and avail­able to all con­fer­ence attendees as soon as they’re processed. 

The speak­ers often com­plain about writ­ing them, but the attendees, lib­rar­ies, stu­dents, and tech­no­logy his­tor­i­ans always appre­ci­ate the effort. I fig­ure that if it’s worth going through a peer-reviewed sub­mis­sion pro­cess, pre­par­ing the talk, fly­ing to the con­fer­ence and speak­ing to lots of people, then it’s worth archiv­ing what you said in a way that people can still under­stand 6 months later (which isn’t the case with Power­Point or equi­val­ent slides, which simply lack the con­text and inform­a­tion to make sense out of all those pretty graph­ics). Pro­ceed­ings also have a lot more room than a 45-minute talk, so people can add all the appro­pri­ate ref­er­ences, add more tech­nic­al dis­cus­sion, or bring in odd facts that they don’t have time for on the podium.

The ques­tion is how to make it easi­er for people to cre­ate their papers? It’s always sur­pris­ing how many people speak­ing at an XML con­fer­ence seem to have dif­fi­culty in writ­ing papers in XML and how often we get the request to just let them use Word (hmm, shades of what I used to hear when work­ing for SoftQuad, but from XML-savvy people). One poten­tial answer is to get more author­ing tools vendors to make their tools avail­able to the speak­ers, as a way of mar­ket­ing their tools’ abil­it­ies. We’ve done this in the past, with a cus­tom DTD. This year we want to encour­age more vendors to make tools avail­able, so we’ve decided to cre­ate a sub­set of Doc­Book to be used for the con­fer­ence pro­ceed­ings. If you are involved with an XML author­ing tool pro­du­cer and are inter­ested in provid­ing a cus­tom­iz­a­tion for the Doc­Book sub­set and being lis­ted on the con­fer­ence web­site, send me an email.

I’m being immensely helped in cre­at­ing the sub­set by Norm Walsh, Eve Maler (both Doc­Book gurus), Ben­jamin Jung (who does the final pro­ceed­ings pro­cessing), and Philip Mans­field (who cre­ated the style sheets for the pro­ceed­ings sub­mis­sion sys­tem and will have some tools for cre­at­ing pro­ceed­ings papers this year).

We’re work­ing on the sub­set now; it will be announced on the con­fer­ence web site when it’s ready. We already know it will be close to sim­pli­fied Doc­Book, with article as the top-level ele­ment, author inform­a­tion in articleinfo, and cooked bib­li­o­graph­ies, for those of you who want to get star­ted on your pro­ceed­ings papers or your tool cus­tom­iz­a­tions early ;-).

Jun 222004
 

Most of the people who sub­mit­ted papers to the XML 2004 Con­fer­ence will have heard by now wheth­er their talk was accep­ted, waitl­is­ted, or rejec­ted. Pick­ing the papers is quite an involved pro­cess; since the qual­ity of the con­fer­ence depends on the qual­ity of the papers it’s also an import­ant pro­cess. Every con­fer­ence picks papers in a dif­fer­ent way; here are some notes on how the con­fer­ence I chair does this.

Con­tin­ue reading »

Jun 172004
 

The book­club I belong to picked the books for the 2004–5 sea­son. It went a lot quick­er this year than last because two of the men had to rush off to their hockey game. We seem to have a some­what unusu­al book­club, in that there are men and women, and we try to read a wide selec­tion of types of books — some old, some new, and occa­sion­ally non-fic­tion. We mostly try for books that indi­vidu­als might not read without some incent­ive, or books that look like they’d lead to inter­est­ing discussions.

Con­tin­ue reading »

Jun 162004
 

Air Canada has a bad repu­ta­tion these days; in many ways they are a case study for what not to do in cus­tom­er ser­vice. I recently flew on Air Canada and had some delays in the flight. The way most of the Air Canada staff handled the situ­ation just proved that bad cus­tom­er ser­vice makes for extremely upset cus­tom­ers. It would have been so easy for Air Canada to not make things worse, if they’d just fol­lowed a couple of basic cus­tom­er ser­vice rules. 

Con­tin­ue reading »

Jun 162004
 

In all the dis­cus­sions about weblogs.com clos­ing down, it’s good to see that people are going to be able to get their data. And that lots of people are step­ping up offer­ing to help con­vert that data into oth­er formats. This is a ser­vice not always avail­able in the com­mer­cial world, unfortunately.

The first (non-blog) ver­sion of laurenwood.org was hos­ted on a com­mer­cial ISP that was sold to someone else, then someone else, etc. Since I’d paid a year in advance (silly me) I did­n’t really notice until it was time to renew, and then I could­n’t find out who to pay! The whois registry gave me a phone num­ber, the people at the end of the phone claimed to not know who I was or what my web­site was, or even the name of the com­pany I’d ori­gin­ally signed up with. It was no sur­prise when that site even­tu­ally just dis­ap­peared from the web. For­tu­nately I’d copied most of the data by then, and now I either host myself or make reg­u­lar backups of sites (such as textuality.com) that are hos­ted elsewhere.

Jun 112004
 

As a Cana­dian cit­izen who does some work for cus­tom­ers in the U.S., I needed to get some form of leg­al status for busi­ness trips there. For Cana­dians trav­el­ling tem­por­ar­ily, TN status is the easi­est if you qual­i­fy. Here­with a few notes on my exper­i­ence of the procedure.

Con­tin­ue reading »

/* ]]> */