Lists Home |
Date Index |
Dave Pawson wrote:
> 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.
It is not just the data based XML that is /machine/ generated. There is
a market for dochead types who do need or do not want to know XML. Are
the XML generated by /WYSIWYG/ XML editors machine generated?
FWIW, I don't care if XML is refactored. I can take what I want and
leave the rest. I just wouldn't take something like docbook...
Happy birthday Ayn!
> Perhaps a shade of grey between the black and white?
> regards DaveP
> 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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>