<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title>Articles&gt;Document Design&gt;Software&gt;Content Management</title>	<link>http://tc.eserver.org/dir/Articles/Document-Design/Software/Content-Management</link>
	<description>A listing of the most recently indexed works about Articles and Document Design and Software and Content Management in the field of technical communication.</description>
	<language>en-us</language>
	<copyright>Copyright (c) 2005-08 by the EServer. All rights reserved.</copyright>
	<managingEditor>tclib-editorial@eserver.org (TC Library Editorial Board)</managingEditor>
	<webMaster>webmaster@eserver.org (Geoffrey Sauer)</webMaster>
	
	<item>
		<title>The Right and Wrong of Quark and Adobe Strategies</title>
		<link>http://tc.eserver.org/31753.html</link>
		<guid>http://tc.eserver.org/31753.html</guid>
		<description>What distinguishes the underlying strategies of Adobe InDesign from QuarkXPress is the absence or presence of a content management system (CMS). And each company asserts that it’s following the less-traveled road. The problem is they’re both taking roads most traveled because of their respective stances towards integrated content management systems, and I’ll show you how after looking at their respective strategies.</description>
	</item>
	<atom:link href="http://tc.eserver.org/dir/Articles/Document-Design/Software/Content-Management.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
</channel>
</rss>