[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: [SUMMARY #1] Why is there little usage of XML on the 'visi
Rick Jelliffe said: > > Obviously XML is capable of representing the information. (Almost any > syntax can.) Obviously modeling more than toy versions of human > technologies (typesetting, mathematics, chemistry) is not trivial. > Obviously there are tradeoffs, and deciding to make some things easy may > in fact make other things hard. And, most obviously, when people master > an existing tool, they can be loathe to adopt another. Consequently > there will always be people who aren't served optimally or adequately by > any single standard. That is why plurality is important. That a > technology is not perfect just means it is a human technology. Completely agree. I like alternative approaches compiting in equality of conditions. Others no and reason that emphasize usage of specific technologies they like. > I'm with Peter, in that I had expected there would be more of a > profusion of domain-specific browsers. What one? for instance why a MathML native browser? why not just a OpenMath browser? Why a CML browser? Why a XHTML browser? Etc. Take a simple field academic -publishing on physical chemistry- would users install a dozen of domain-specific browsers for accesing to information: STMML, UnitsML, OpenMath extensions, p-MathML, c-MathML, XHTML, XSLT, XSL-FO, ThermoML, CML... All of that assuming that information _is good_ I have noticed some academic journals of physics are serving {ds}^2 as 2s ds when using MathML for the encoding. > > Cheers > Rick Jelliffe > Juan R. Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
|
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
|