>John,
>
>>Yes, TE stands for Technical Editor. That said, Technical Editors SHOULD be experienced with the techncial material they are editing. How else can they do an effective job.
>
>Speaking from an editorial background, I would say that Technical Editors should be the type of people who are inquisitive, analytical, persistent and consistent in editorial standards, well-read, conversant with the subject matter they are responsible for, and generally the kind of person who makes a good thorough beta-tester.
>
>>Tell me, what would you think of a book on C/S development with Visual FoxPro technically edited by somebody that has no exerience in developing C/S applications or with SQL Server? Well guess what, that is exactly the issue you have with the Hentzenwerke book. Chaim Caron is techncially editing that book. I happen to know that he has no experience in that field of computing. So then, how is he qualified to undertake that task?
>
>If he fits most of the above qualifications that I listed, I expect that he will do a great job. A Technical Editor who can read what the authors write from the standpoint of an inexperienced user and then persistently test the example code may very well be better qualified than one who knows the material inside and out.

David,

Anyone ever hear of the word "scotoma"? *g* Your last point IMO is dead on.

Best,

DD