so the
reflection is obviously one against the format chosen by Wrox
and continued when Wiley took things over. Of course, I
can't imagine that this is something they do in
ignorance: My guess is that their research and/or
user-feedback from over the years suggests this to be a
format that works for the core readers/customers that are
attracted to Wrox titles.
Actually, the original Wrox (when they were an independent UK-based
publisher) got this right; when Wiley took over the brand they messed it up,
largely due to a lack of coordination between their "editorial" and
"production" departments - a distinction which didn't exist in the much
smaller Wrox company. When the technical editor and I realized the page
proofs didn't have the alphabetical section headings we tried to get it
fixed but were told it was too late to change, for which I can only
apologize to readers!
I'm in the very early stages of discussion with Wiley about doing a revised
edition of the books to fix the few areas where the final specs have
diverged. Don't hold your breath.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--