Re: [xml-dev] Should one adopt the tag naming convention of anexisting X

[cbullard@hiwaay.net]

It is a paid up reality.  As for chest thumping, let the turbo driven  
rotors do that.  It's green here; not gray at least since 1865.

I've yet to see WordPress produce a mil-spec TM for republishing into  
a variety of XML-derived publications.  I suppose it could be done but  
why?

The tool should fit the process and the upstream resources.  If one  
takes a job where they use Word, one processes Word first.  If not,  
don't.  XML doesn't care but XML tools do.  Mostly programmers do but  
like the rest of us, they have their prejudices and those are often  
reflected in the tools they choose and the code they write.  Given a  
mass distribution engine like the web, those prejudices can easily and  
rapidly become "best practice" for some n of the available conscripts.  
  In the eyes of many a programmer, XML is considered a "best  
practice" of just that sort.

Erik Naggum made a career of making that point.

The answer to the topic is, yes, if the locals don't mind.

len


Quoting Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>:

> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:53 AM, <cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
>> Reality check, Uche: a not insignificant number of people giving us
>> documents are using Microsoft Word.  Like it or not, that's where the
>> information is; so, solving problems of that conversion is the first task
>> on the stack, not the last one.  It isn't a hard one but it comes with
>> surprises. The best tool does the job I need it do and doesn't get in the
>> way.
>>
>
> That's your reality. Enjoy it. It's still entirely beside the point.
>
> I'd say that the number of people authoring XMLish stuff through Web forms
> (e.g. WordPress) has grown past those doing so in your grey industrial
> bureaus. So if you insist on an argument from high authority, I'll just
> puff up my chest and thump my own H.A. as well. I suspect that won't get us
> very far.
>
>
> There is a full copy of Arbortext Editor on my desktop here at work.  I
>> open the document in it from time to get error reports and to create PDF.
>>  Like so many editors, it leaks memory and crashes the desktop, takes a
>> very long time to render and has a very awkward means of entering attribute
>> values.  The treeview is almost useless.
>>
>> The attempt to be both an XML/SGML editor and a WYSIWYG editor is on my
>> list of overbuilt.  It is a lot faster to build a form that sequences
>> documents in response to queries, checks syntax and validates and on
>> request, renders to a reasonable facsimile in an embedded browser in a
>> separate tab.  Otherwise, the XML in XML is a fine GUI for editing.  I
>> know, Oxygen is a good editor.  Get it past the procurement folk who vette
>> sources before they will install software on the machines behind the
>> firewalls.
>>
>
> Why? I don't really care to do so. Nor do I need to.
>
>
> --
> Uche Ogbuji                       http://uche.ogbuji.net
> Weblog: http://copia.ogbuji.net
> Poetry ed @TNB: http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
> Founding Partner, Zepheira        http://zepheira.com
> Linked-in: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
> Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
> Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/uche
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/uogbuji
> http://www.google.com/profiles/uche.ogbuji
>