Ya know... everytime I see a response from an author indicating that they didn't have room for a particular topic related to a book they wrote - I can't help but interject and say "Bull" - the author is in full control (mostly) of the content and the length of the material. If an "Intro to JSF" fundamentals wasn't included, it's because the author either CHOSE not to include this by either feeling it wasn't necessary or determining such a topic would be too elementary and assuming the reader should or would already have a grasp of such concepts. I submit the author wasn't interested in making a 400+-page tome; but rather felt it more reasonable to guide the reader on a journey to develop a practical application while introducing specific topics and features of ICEfaces v1.8 relevant to the components under consideration of that journey.
-- da Lizard
Joined: Jan 24, 2009
I don't know if you ever wrote a book yourself. My agreement with the publisher was a limitation to 250 pages. So, I can't follow your interpretation why authors skip topics. You have to be a Martin Fowler to have almost 100% control over how the book will look like.
BTW: There was even not enough room to have a look at all ICEfaces components.
Joined: Aug 15, 2008
That's too bad.
I've never allowed a limitation based on number of pages. I recall my academia days - we regularly had limitations on number of words or some kind of limitation because the instructor felt it important to make such a limitation for a number of reasons, primarily because the student needed to demonstrate skill in presenting a reasonable topic with short but insightful arguments. In my experience with the journalism business, we're perpetually limited by space of the particular media rag we're writing for - having the same criteria as academia - limitations are there by editors and rag owners to keep issues at a consistent length and depth of topics are not THAT important. The driver in editorial cuts and content length are primarily driven by industry economics and not necessarily convention (though there is a lot of that as well). But, when identifying a publisher for a book - limitations to length of content has been very rare, in my experience. Generally, I have found most interested in depth of topic coverage as being more important than the number of pages - especially in this day and age of a general preference for published material being in electronic form rather than in print. I do agree that in preliminary contacts there is a general hesitation by publishers to discuss content exceeding the 200 - to - 300 page length since there are known marketing statistics on what gets better sales results and research that show readers' penchant for fewer pages. But, it is generally a good practice to provide a well-reasoned argument on why a topic is needed as opposed to something that can be editorially struck - and if the approach to certain publishers is made with a manuscript in hand, the argument usually is better received than a discussion made over lunch or dinner on a pie-in-the-sky proposal. My approach has almost always been preemptive - with proposed manuscript in-hand and a prepared argument for each section and chapter, including surveyed reader responses (I'll generally ask for peer reviews before contacting publishers). But... I never did discuss success-fail ratios... I've learned not to count on "writing" as a significant contributor to my bottom line, although I do have a few royalty checks under my belt, it will never be a primary source of income.
Anyway, I digress the original topic off into this tangent, time to cease. I just happened to be browsing some of the JSF discussions to pass some time and perhaps learn something new today; when Rainer, your comment toggled a latent response bug (pushed a hidden button, if you will) prompting me to generate flame-bait and eliciting a defense response from you. Apparently, this is a sore topic to me for a number of reasons, none of which is appropriate in this forum. This is a case where my fingers got caught up in the moment and my reasonable persona didn't stop me from pressing the submit button after venting. Rainer I owe you an apology as well. I now feel I should get off the soapbox and put you back up there where you should be. You created much needed documentation to an excellent framework and your method for covering the features and resources available of the subject matter is well reasoned and done in a very useful and meaningful manner, providing the reader with a useful application in addition to the knowledge gained. Thanks...