RE: Open Source XML Editor

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Markup requires a human readable definition.  AKA, 
a help file.  The beauty of it is that done once 
or twice, the understanding becomes automatic 
(mostly hand to eye) and the noise level in the 
output drops dramatically.  Thus, a much more 
predictable output with superior QOS numbers 
is achieved.  The definitions are tweaked to 
the local requirements (conceptual modeling - 
top down) or are derived from them (tag sprinkling 
- bottom up).  In both approaches, they have to be 
tuned.  That is what the IT folks do.

The early supporters of markup were logistics 
experts.  They understood the current problem and the 
solution.  The earliest opponents were layout 
artists and technical editors.  The owned the 
current solution to the problem.  Later, these 
folks swapped positions when HTML was acclaimed.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Marcus Carr [mailto:mrc@allette.com.au]

Danny Ayers wrote:

> This is fair enough, but I was responding to your point about authors not
> being intimidated by markup. Knowing the structure and knowing the markup
> aren't necessarily the same thing.

No, but if I had a choice between someone who understood the structure of a
data
set and someone who had memorised the element and attribute names, I know
which
one I'd choose. Structure requires comprehension - markup just requires a
map.