[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> At 1:22 PM -0500 4/8/04, Bob Foster wrote:
> >Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> >> ...I'm a man of extremes. I either want to edit my XML by hand in
> >>a text editor (with maybe a little help from syntax coloring and
> >>tag completion,
> >
> >And maybe a little validation and a little formatting? ;-}
> >
>
> I suppose I could use a preview or validate button. I specifically do
> not want constant validation. That is, I want the editor to not
> validate the document I am writing. I do not want it to complain or
> even notice if I'm producing invalid markup. I should also not that
> when it comes to code completion, I do not want anything based on
> some notion of which tags are and are not valid at a particular
> point. Editors that try this stuff are actively crippling. Even if
> they were wicked fast (which they aren't), this feature would still
> get in my way and stop me from doing what I need to do. Features like
> this are harmful by their very nature, irrespective of performance
> issues.
>
Exactly. Any and all "nice" features can get in the way under certain
circumstances and they should all be optional. That's the philosophy I
applied with xmlHack. It does tag-completion, even a couple different
flavors of it, but you can turn that off. Tag insight is the same way,
completely optional. Validation is not onEdit, rather it's a button the
user can press when they're ready. Currently uses a DOM validation, though
next version will be a SAX validator (for speed purposes). And the Preview
feature is handy, you register with it a different application to "preview"
the XML document with (such as IE) and then when you're ready, you click on
it and see how it looks in said application.
Any editor I would use would have the ability to sacrifice features for
speed...
Bryce K. Nielsen
SysOnyx, Inc. (www.sysonyx.com)
Makers of xmlLinguist, the EDI-to-XML Translator
http://www.xmllinguist.com
|
