[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: The Legend of 'View Source'
Overall, I benefit from view source. Court of first resort. A problem that grows over time isn't understanding the language, but picking the right language for the job. View source works but it depends, once again, on what is between the tags as to how well it works, and then somewhat, on the naming of the tags and the effects of structure. It also depends on **a freely downloadable viewer**. Don't underrate the impact of that last bit. Free software, not view source, built the web. You are right about the simplicity, but that doesn't mean one should advocate taking a Kleenex to the beach for a ground cover or that one has the right to take a beach towel left unattended. For HTML: easy. It works. What is between the tags is mostly human readable text. Deconstruction is direct. HTML is a bad exemplar for 'how things should be done' but a good example of how a simple solution spreads. For RTF: very hard. Nothing but a manual will get you through. Deconstruction is useful. It is a bad example period. For SVG: not too difficult. Depends on how well one recognizes and uses graphics objects. Deconstruction works most of the time but you are stealing content if you cut and paste without much regard for originality. Always read the copyrights. For X3D: medium difficulty. This is an object language in pointy brackets. The VRML encoding is easier to read than the XML encoding. It depends on which objects the author used. The Euclidean primitives are easy. The indexed sets are opaque. The structure and scope are important, so simple deconstruction techniques take time and once again, you are stealing content. Always read the copyrights. For XSLT: very difficult. This is a functional programming language. Without a background and some explanation, neither deconstruction nor copying get one very far. XSLT protects itself but read the copyrights. View source is overrated for learning a language although helpful, but once you know a language, it is a fantastic way to acquire techniques and sophistication. Because style is part of branding, it is precisely why binaries are demanded by customers. We can argue endlessly about the effectiveness of that approach, but cannot deny the market is demanding it. len From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@c...] I do not think the point of the claim is that View Source is good for complex XML or whatever. I think the real claim is that View Source was an important factor in the amazing spread of the Web. I believe it. Even now there are many people who learn their html by looking at source and tinkering with it. This has lead to a lot of misconceptions.
|
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
|