Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to au
 From: "Paul Prescod" <paul@p...> > Actually, it was the creators of XML who decided not to keep any of > them. > > You can get the full story from one of the "fathers of XML": > > http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/xml-dev-May-1998/0311.html This is a really good quote because it clearly shows that XML was not developed as an editing syntax but as a processing syntax. It was (and still) standard practise in most organizations that use SGML to normalize the SGML before shipping it or processing it, for the kinds of reasons Jon mentioned. But the issue of whether normalized tagged documents are easy or efficient to create in a text editor is utterly distinct. It is a GOMS issue, a UI issue, an HCI issue, a tools issue. Everything except an issue of what syntax is good for the DPH. Many people naturally want to hope that QUASIWYG editing is the way to go, that it has relieved us from the additional burdon of well-formedness. Front-page and other HTML tools do show that if we spend a few million dollars, we can get excellent QASIWYG editors that are very pleasant to use for a particular Document Type. And many of the excellent configurable QASIWYG structured editors allow us to make stylesheets fairly easily. But that then requires training, maintenance, deployment and sometimes programmers; this is probably fine if you have the resources and skills available, and you are working on only a single document type. But if you have to work with multiple, evolving document types or have deadlines and tight budgets/resources, then the economics and practicalities can be utterly different. When you edit with a text editor, then terseness is of extreme importance. In my own area of interest, if you are doing markup (automated or in a text editor) you typically hunt for patterns and the add tags at those points: it is usually unlikely that you can find a pattern that readily corresponds to an end-tag (except for inline elements and some containers such as lists). The time the document is WF or valid is the time you have finished work on it and are shipping it (as XML) to the next bloke. I don't know how many times I have heard people say "Oh, but everyone needs an XML editor that generates WF-XML" closely followed by "But, of course, I just use a text editor, but that is because of ...(fill in rationalization here)" :-) Simon's point is also good here: when using a text-editor or a forgiving tool, a lot of the advantage over WF tools comes from good work practises. Cheers Rick Jelliffe Topologi Pty. Ltd. 
|
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
|
|||||||||
