Lists Home |
Date Index |
Anthony Coates wrote
> ... don't give me this old line about viewing the source being
> the only true and pure way to do things.
Paul Prescod wrote
> I think that it is a fallacy that visual is always easier than textual.
From: Joe English [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> A point-and-click IDE might be an effective way
> to assemble a working application from prepackaged
> components, but that isn't programming. I believe
> something similar is true for schema design.
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
> Elitist. :-)
Maybe there are two tribes:
* one sees XML as a way to allow custom syntax-constraining GUIs
manipulating objects not code.
* the other sees XML as a way to *escape* from requiring custom GUIs,
preferring generic syntax-aware (text- and symbol- and tree-/list-/table- based) tools.
Proponents of the first view might say "WXS is great, because now I have a
clear set of components that I can make icons for and put in a pallette". Proponents
of the second view might say "the WXS language is badly designed, because its inheritence
structures rely on non-standard reference mechanisms that a generic XML editor
Perhaps it should be a business question rather than an abstract one. Custom GUIs
cost time and money and need a maintenance effort; they have a bad name for being
slow, poor with large documents, and inflexible. But sometimes that might be warranted
(i.e. for cashed-up departments, very static document types--like successful public schemas--,
and small documents). However, by the same token, sometimes custom GUIs may be