[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Because it tends to be true. The wet ware dedicates
an enormous amount of its resources to visualization
and differences based on visual differences. That's
why no matter how much one considers layout to be
trivial, it is actually fundamental to learning.
To me, element elementness is painful. One gets
used to it, but the first time up, it hurts.
The problem is not learning; it helps there.
The problem is managing multiple processable
syntaxes in an environment where these artifacts
are process and instance constraint controls.
Having two versions of the same authoritative
information is a political hassle and that
becomes a cost hassle.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]
"J. David Eisenberg" wrote:
>
>...
> Having a non-XML syntax does make teaching easier in many respects. I
> found when teaching a beginning XML class that they had less trouble
> understanding DTDs than Relax because DTDs don't look like XML.
Argh. That's exactly what we predicted when "Schemas in XML syntax" was
the rage. They claimed it would be so much easier to teach because the
students wouldn't have to learn "another syntax." Others argued it would
just confuse people with the similarity!
|
