[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: XML Editor recommendation?
Although I would say CSS would be preferable, FOSI is also a standard, if not a W3C standard. Having worked in the web for many years, I have come to find that compliance to a standard is worth it's weight in gold when constructing applications, etc. Anyone who has written CSS/DHTML applications for cross browser platforms will understand how much time can be spent working out what will work and what will not, essentially what subset applies to all platforms and the platform specific hacks necessary for more complicated behaviour. At the very least we should expect an up front declaration of what is implemented, what is buggy and what is proprietary, thus allowing us to make informed decisions as to which product to choose to suit our needs. I found the FOSI DTD on Epic, so I should know what to expect. I was pleased to see that two XSL:FO implementers: Apache FOP & RenderX are clear about what they do and do not support and from which recommendation, I was quickly able to asses which would be suitable for our needs. The differences between Epic & Epic LE can be found at: http://www.arbortext.com/Products/Product_Overview/Epic_Editor_LE/Epic_Edito r/epic_editor.html Once again I am not anti-XMetal, I have just tried to explain why LE may be more appropriate for us at this point. Time will tell. Kind regards Lee -----Original Message----- From: Michael Champion [mailto:mchamp@m...] >>And if Epic doesn't, why ask about XMetaL's level of compliance?
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|