[Edu-sig] How best to publish?...

[lexberezhny]

>
> >So why not work toward an open-source type of XML format that
> >can remain free?
>
> Well, HTML (a subset of SGML, of which XML is a streamlined
> version), is already such a public domain tag language.
> Your browser (likely a free download) knows what to do
> with those tags.
>
> So HTML is much better than we've ever had, in terms of
> being able to share formatted materials in the public
> domain.  From the point of view of the 1960s, we're
> already there.  But then of course we always raise our
> standards to the next level, assuring eternal
> dissatisfaction with what we've got (aye, there's the
> rub).
>
> As we've learned from experience, any time someone sets
> down a trully useful standard, it gets caught in a tug-o-war
> as innovators overlay it with their own specialized
> enchancements.  This has happened with HTML.  XML doesn't
> prevent it either, just makes it easier for everyone to
> extend their tag sets as they please, with no upper limits
> (the standard defines the syntax, so automatic parsers
> can verify code at a low level, and people take it from
> there).

Actually I think I agree with you on this one. HTML stands for Hyper Text
Markup Language, so isnt that what we are doing, we are putting our
documents into a standard format using a common markup language. I guess the
only advantage we would have had from using DocBook is the tools that
already exist, and make it easy to actually publish stuff other then just
display content. DocBook will generate a table of contents, and make it easy
to search certain chapters with specific topics, etc. If any of you are
familiar with Zope, a DocBook product has just come out which is free and
actually works.

> Coming up with standards that actually propagate is really
> difficult, except maybe under dictatorships.  It's very
> easy to say "let's all agree".  But then what?  It's not
> really easy at all, because, ultimately, no one is in
> control at the top (just principles operating on auto-
> pilot, like gravity).
>
> I just don't think it wise to have our Python-informed
> curriculum efforts get side-tracked into some "how do we
> do this the right way the first time" investigations.
> Like, I think Elkner is asking good questions and his
> heart is certainly in the right place, but at the end
> of the day, people are gonna do what they're gonna do.
>
> Personally, I thought the PDF versions of the LiveWires
> stuff was adequate, and question the need for HTMLized
> versions of all the same stuff.  But maybe I just don't
> understand the big picture here.
>
> Anyway, my view is we should just get stuff out there,
> using whatever existing standards.  Even use Microsoft
> Word that's what you know.  Even if you don't have it,
> someone in your network probably does, and will download
> and convert it for you.  Leave it to the informal grape
> vines to mix 'n match as needed.  Not important to
> always use lowest common denominator, which might be
> straight ASCII (but how does that work for Kanji, plus
> we need lotsa graphics plus...).
>
> Speaking of kanji, keep in mind that we're on the brink
> of going to way more characters, given unicode.  A lot
> of teachers doing Python-informed curriculum writing
> will be doing so using characters that Roman alphabet
> people can't decipher easily.  So even if they use
> the most open source of all formats (e.g. HTML), there's
> no way a lot of us are going to be able to use their
> materials directly (or vice versa).  Such is life
> in the big city.
>
> My personal practice is to use HTML for most of my
> public domain curriculum writing.  It suits my needs and
> will persist as a standard for a long time to come, even
> with XML in the picture.  When JPython applets become
> easier to create, I expect we'll see a lot more of
> those.  But it's not critical that everything you're
> doing with Python be doable over the web or sharable
> in some HTML-embedded form.
>
> With Adobe Distiller, you can convert your web pages
> into PDFs, but I've never found a good reason for
> doing that.
>
> Lastly, let me put in a plug for video (with audio).
> A lot of what I personally want to teach is bottlenecked
> behind the fact that I have no access to a well-
> equipped media lab.
>
> And I include real life teachers, lecturing or taking
> questions, as part of what goes under the heading of
> "TV" (whether that be streaming, PAL/NTSC or whatever).
> Take Bill Nye the Science Guy for example -- now
> _there's_ a real teacher (better than I'll ever be).
>
> Some of this Python stuff could well be imparted with
> videos.  I'm not just talking about staring at some
> screen while people type code.  That'd be a small
> part of it.  I'm talking about creative mixes of
> live action, interviews, over-the-shoulder views of
> coding sessions, and other stuff, to give students
> the flavor of real world, working situations in which
> Python (and math in general) is of vital importance
> (gets back to the PR problems we're having with the
> women -- if we make the TV shows right, this will
> stop being a problem after awhile).

Hey that sounds like a great idea. I wonder if Jeffery Elkner would be
interested in cooking up something like that. We have all of the equipment
needed. And Guido is comming to our school soon, so we can include an
interview with him. And from my understanding we have some students who have
been doing a lot of television broadcasting at our career center, so we have
some qualified people. So if any one has suggestions of how this should be
done, please speak up. Thanks. (and if we dont do this, someone will...)

 - Lex

ps. I am one of Elkner's students :-) just though i would leave my two cents
here