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

RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too ha rd for

• To: 'Tom Gaven' <Tom.Gaven@e...>, 'xml-dev' <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too ha rd for Aunt Trudie?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:44:25 -0500

Not at all.  Ease and skill across a variety of languages 
in a single notation suffer multiple notations.  It is 
simply habituation.  Features aren't the issue at all.
It is hand to eye coordination.  There is no logical 
proof involved.  Just typing skill and mapping from 
one representation of features to another while reading 
or typing.

Syntax is not trivial.

So while we're at it, let's kill the SGML Declaration 
for XML and go with a curly syntax.  Should be really 
popular.  :-)

len


From: Tom Gaven [mailto:Tom.Gaven@e...]

>Ease can be bought at the price of general knowledge and skill.

In developing the RELAX NG compact syntax, James Clark and the rest 
of the RELAX NG gang have proved this statement to be incorrect. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too ha rd for Aunt Trudie?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too hard for Aunt Trudie?
• Next by Date: Re: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too ha rd for Aunt Trudie?
• Previous by thread: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too ha rd for Aunt Trudie?
• Next by thread: Re: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too ha rd for Aunt Trudie?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread