This writing project was my first time using an XML markup instead of a normal word processor and the results were quite different. Overall I felt as though I spent more time focusing on the format of the processor than on the actual content of what I was doing. One of my biggest weaknesses is programming and it was hard for me to adjust to the format of the command window with a language I was unfamiliar with. Part of my problem was that I didn’t know what I didn’t know; once I had the general gist of how to structure my annotations, I was unsure whether or not I had correctly divided and marked them up in the processor.
In the end, I reverted back to laying out my annotations in a traditional style in Microsoft word and then cookie-cutting them to fit into the XML file with correct formatting.
Once I got past the struggle of learning XML, I noticed that it had prompted a new way of thinking and organizing thoughts. I typically think of literature and science as two different, if not polar opposite, fields. However, XML forced them together by taking a scientific and structured approach to literature. It broke the literature down into its most basic elements, which created both clarity and confusion. On one hand it identified every unique aspect of the annotations and created a framework/guideline for future ones. On the other hand though, it drew from our recent readings regarding genre and brought up questions regarding “what is this genre?”, “who says this is definitely how this genre is classified,?”, and “is this the only correct way to classify this element?”.
I feel as though science is a field of definites and literature is a field of subjectivity, and therefore there will be problems regarding crossing both of them over. I think that focusing more on the actual writing and practice of it would be more beneficial than using Oxygen and analyzing how to break the writing down.
