Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:48 AM, Pete Cordell <petexmldev@c...> wrote: >> Being devil's advocate, I'm guessing that people might think this is one >> small part of what an XML IDE does and think "that's useful. I'll wait >> until it turns up in Oxygen or Stylus." >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Michael Kay <mike@s...> wrote: > > Yes, it reminds me that it was years before I started using an XML editor in > preference to a general-purpose editor, because although the XML editors > were better at XML, they were worse at everything else. > > In fact, it's hard for me to believe now, but for years I used a > general-purpose editor in preference to a Java IDE for similar reasons. It's > not enough to do one thing well. > Sadly, I've learnt this lesson recently only too well. But, going back to the context of this thread, we're comparing a deliberately stripped down proof of concept (but with enough left in to be viable as a working tool) with an XML IDE, General users won't of course see it that way, as Pete rightly observes, but I hope that those able to view this more objectively as simply a demonstration of a concept in a working tool will. There's another more subtle point raised here that I nearly missed, which is that now XML IDEs give us all sort of other syntaxes like Java, CSS, Javascript, XQuery, SQL etc. , vendors are not going to be keen to adopt virtual formatting which, while especially suited to XML's characteristics, has less going for it when used for non-XML syntaxes. The message seems to be that if we want our tools to suit a wider range of tasks, we should accept the necessary compromises - this seems a more than reasonable case to accept the status quo. Phil
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
