[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: [RFC] "Shlomi =?UTF-8?B?RmlzaOKAmXM=?= FAQ - Why areyou st

• From: Shlomi Fish <shlomif@shlomifish.org>
• To: Jim DeLaHunt <list+xml-dev@jdlh.com>
• Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 18:21:47 +0300

Hi Jim,

On Tue, 17 May 2022 23:48:33 -0700
Jim DeLaHunt <list+xml-dev@jdlh.com> wrote:

> Shlomi:
> 
> On 2022-05-17 5:47 a.m., Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > hi all,
> >
> > seehttps://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/why_xml.xhtml  :
> > …[snip]…
> > what do you think?  
> 
> I think that I am glad you articulated these reasons. They overlap with 
> my reasons, and your words help me explain myself to my skeptics.
> 

I'm glad.

> However, when you wrote this:
> 
> > Now, with respect to HTML 5, the Markdowns and AsciiDoc, while I use them
> > sometimes, they are less structured and more errorprone than many XML
> > grammars, and often are not semantic enough for all my use cases.  
> 
> … my first reaction was, are you using an XML-aware editor to do your 
> data entry?  Because one source of pushback against XML languages and in 
> favour of markdowns and AsciiDoc, which I encounter in projects, is the 
> assumption that we can only expect authors to use plain text editors, 
> with no XML syntax support. And in a plain text editor, I think it 
> genuinely is easier — /less/ errorprone — to author in a markdown 
> language or in AsciiDoc.
> 

I use gvim and neovim with plugins and customisations:

* https://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/text_editors.xhtml

*
https://github.com/shlomif/shlomif-computer-settings/blob/master/shlomif-settings/vim-conf/conf-Vim/shlomif-main.vim

no idea if my config can be called 'XML-aware'.

the syntax/grammar of asciidoctor and markdowns are finicky and unpredictable
when authored using vim, from my experience.

> Also, the complement to "less structured" is "less complex". I know one 
> project where some doc maintainers are proposing switching away from the 
> XML-based DocBook language, to AsciiDoc, because there are so many 
> entities and "more structured" capabilities that it is complex to figure 
> out for a casual contributor. These maintainers judge that it is better 
> to have less structure but to be accessible to casual contributors of 
> documentation improvements.
> 

I'm not a purist in using the most semantic elements [whether in docbook 5 or
in XHTML5]. Also, often having a higher barrier for entry is advantageous :

*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Road#A_metaphorical_%22Royal_Road%22_in_famous_quotations

*
https://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/philosophy/putting-cards-on-the-table-2019-2020/#selling-for-stupider-ppl

there is the flip side too, though:

* https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/04/02/20020402/

> You might want to consider addressing these points in your essay.
> 
> I hope this is the kind of helpful feedback you are looking for.
> 

It is. thanks!

> Best regards,
>        —Jim DeLaHunt
> 



-- 

Shlomi Fish       https://www.shlomifish.org/
Star Trek: “We, the Living Dead” - https://shlom.in/st-wtld

If Chuck Norris travelled to the market with his son and his donkey, he would
have clubbed the critics to death. With the donkey.
    — https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/bits/facts/Chuck-Norris/

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - https://shlom.in/reply .

• References:
  • [RFC] "Shlomi =?UTF-8?B?RmlzaOKAmXM=?= FAQ - Why are you stillusing XML?"
    • From: Shlomi Fish <shlomif@shlomifish.org>
  • =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFt4bWwtZGV2XSBbUkZDXSAiU2hsb21pIEZpc2jigJlzIEZBUSAt?==?UTF-8?Q?_Why_are_you_still_using_XML=3f=22?=
    • From: Jim DeLaHunt <list+xml-dev@jdlh.com>