[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Non-xml syntax for WXS

• To: 'Paul Prescod' <paul@p...>
• Subject: RE: Non-xml syntax for WXS
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 08:50:04 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l..., "Charles F. Goldfarb" <Charles@X...>

Because it tends to be true.  The wet ware dedicates 
an enormous amount of its resources to visualization 
and differences based on visual differences.  That's 
why no matter how much one considers layout to be 
trivial, it is actually fundamental to learning.  
To me, element elementness is painful.  One gets 
used to it, but the first time up, it hurts.

The problem is not learning; it helps there. 
The problem is managing multiple processable 
syntaxes in an environment where these artifacts 
are process and instance constraint controls. 
Having two versions of the same authoritative 
information is a political hassle and that 
becomes a cost hassle.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...]

"J. David Eisenberg" wrote:
> 
>...
> Having a non-XML syntax does make teaching easier in many respects.  I
> found when teaching a beginning XML class that they had less trouble
> understanding DTDs than Relax because DTDs don't look like XML.

Argh. That's exactly what we predicted when "Schemas in XML syntax" was
the rage. They claimed it would be so much easier to teach because the
students wouldn't have to learn "another syntax." Others argued it would
just confuse people with the similarity!

• Prev by Date: RE: Non-xml syntax for WXS
• Next by Date: RE: Are there any limits?
• Previous by thread: RE: Non-xml syntax for WXS
• Next by thread: RE: CHAT: Bagels and lox
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread