Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: len bullard <email@example.com>
- To: Michael Leventhal <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 20:42:46 -0500
Michael Leventhal wrote:
> I thought the perspectives were coalescing.
> Is this two editor approach a transitional stage on the way to a more
> glorious evolutionary stage or have we, in fact, distinguished different
> types of tasks to which different types of tools have been precisely tailored
> to exact nature of the task?
> Michael Leventhal
Possible. Even in the past, we have seen considerable differences
between SGML-complete editors that were very powerful and came
with attendant setup complexity, and editors that just let you
point to a DTD and get a configured editing interface.
Along the way, some systems whose design parameters did not
include the complexities of *faithful to the pica* print
requirements have been used successfully. At least two
of these were based on laissez-faire (well-formed
input/batch validation on request) systems. These fared
well in production environments and are still deployed.
Here is another perspective. What if DTDs came into
being as a result of measurement of frequency and
occurrence rather than from design and imposition?
Note I am not talking about DTDs generated by inducing
markup, but DTDs created as tags are generated by
users in the course of natural tagging. Consider
the habits borne of the HTML users who began to
unwittingly use content tagging styles almost as
jokes to delineate thoughts in emails, etc.
It is interesting to speculate what the place of
genetic DTDs such as could be created from these
would have since in some ways the resemble a
natural language emerging from an artificial language
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (firstname.lastname@example.org)