[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Open Source XML Editor
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Marcus Carr <email@example.com>, Danny Ayers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:30:17 -0600
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.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Marcus Carr [mailto:email@example.com]
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
set and someone who had memorised the element and attribute names, I know
one I'd choose. Structure requires comprehension - markup just requires a