Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 12:51 -0500, Michael Champion wrote:
> I didn't say "obsolete", I said it's not the mainstream use case for
> XML I see. XML 1.0 appears to have included a lot of stuff to make
> it easier to hand author, and in my non-expert opinion is that stuff
> seems to be causing a disproportionate amount of the pain for
> developers. I'm not presenting that as a conclusion that I wish to
> defend, just a reason for being interested in a profile of XML that is
> focused more on the feature that are most valuable to the mainstream.
> The point that hand-authored XML may be a small percentage of the
> volume but it is more important as assets in the typical system is a
> very interesting one that I'll have to think about.
How about machine converted material which would have been/
may have been originally 'hand authored'.
E.g. conversion from some other format into XML for
reasons of convenience in further processing.
Is that machine generated or hand authored Mike?
Certainly the schemas in use are those used
primarily for hand authored (dochead) as apposed
to data based.
Perhaps a shade of grey between the black and white?