[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I find that often to me and my clients, you are either (a) not going
to touch XML directly because you are using a user interface, which you
would have used anyway even if XML were not present or (b) you're a
programmer and prefer to monkey around with the code directly anyway.
In the case of (b), no amount of pretty printing will turn C++ into Python
or Ruby, and no amount of pretty printing will clarify the semantics of
an obfuscated schema.
Jeff Lowery wrote:
>>Paul Jensen wrote:
>>
>>>It's a good point -- a standard syntax does have advantages you
>>>mention. I just find that XML is cumbersome to enter, and often
>>>difficult to read.
>
>
> If it's just a question of format, HTML Tidy is useful for plain ol' vanilla
> XML:
>
> http://tidy.sourceforge.net/
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
|
