This 2007 archive entry points to Barbara Stuhlemmer’s first-hand account of moving documentation from Microsoft Word to XML. Her article weighs practical reuse benefits against the work of changing tools, styles and processes.
Source publication: December 13, 2007.
Bluestream archive entry: December 3, 2007. Both dates are preserved because the source and archive metadata differ.
What the original article explores
Writing about a medical-device documentation project, Stuhlemmer described how shared material could reduce repeated editing and make coordinated changes easier. She also explained that adopting XML brought new processes, unfamiliar tools and publishing-style work.
Her assessment was deliberately balanced. Reuse and consistent content offered value, while author training, reviewing methods, tool costs and output customization required attention. The article is a record of a 2007 project and tool environment; its comments about DITA maturity and product behavior should be read in that period.
Editorial context · October 2026
Build a conversion pilot around the difficult parts
Before undertaking a conversion, choose a sample that includes the parts most likely to expose real work: a repeated procedure, a complex table, an illustration with references and a publication with audience-specific material. Define what a successful result looks like for each one.
Content questions
- Where are two passages truly identical?
- Which differences are meaningful?
- Who owns a shared component after conversion?
Process questions
- How will reviewers propose changes?
- Who maintains the output styling?
- What evidence will show that the pilot is ready to scale?
Keep the initial sample small enough to inspect manually. Record exceptions and estimate the work they would create across the full collection. That turns a broad format decision into a concrete assessment of content, people and publishing requirements.
This evaluation checklist is Bluestream editorial context added in October 2026. It is separate from Stuhlemmer’s original article and does not imply her endorsement of the additions.