Lists Home |
Date Index |
Anthony B. Coates wrote:
> ... Yeah,
> yeah, you *can* create it with text editors, and Emacs can do a better job than
> vi or Notepad, but don't give me this old line about viewing the source being
> the only true and pure way to do things. It's fine for xml-dev readers, the
> cogniscenti, but in terms of empowering more of the world to contribute to the
> development of schemas, it's a complete failure. It only reinforces the woeful
> trend for more and more of the important technical work of this world being done
> by fewer and fewer people.
I think that it is a fallacy that visual is always easier than textual.
The right abstraction is always easier than the wrong abstraction, and
visual tools can often be powerful accelerators when paired with the
right abstraction. But my hackles go up when visual tools are used to
hide the fact that you are using the wrong (too complex) abstraction.
That's at best a short-term fix that bites you in the ass eventually.
- Prev by Date:
Re: [xml-dev] Does WTSIWYG make simplicity moot? (was Re: [xml-dev] dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies)
- Next by Date:
RE: [xml-dev] Does WTSIWYG make simplicity moot? (was Re: [xml-dev] dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies)
- Previous by thread:
Re: [xml-dev] dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
- Next by thread:
RE: [xml-dev] dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies