[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: XML character sets: a proposal
James Clark wrote:
> 9. XML documents shall be easy to create.
>
> It should be a straightforward task ***(though possibly labor-intensive)***
> to create valid XML documents by hand (i.e. without a validating
> authoring tool). [emphasis added]
That is what I read as well. "Labor-intensive" is relative. I think it
a
different statement to say "straightforward though possibly labor
intensive"
from "XML isn't intended to be convenient to create by hand with a text
editor. People are mostly expected to be using SGML/XML editors to
create." We are differing on *convenience*. If XML is to enhance our
current capabilities, it will be easier to create in a text editor
because
the author isn't burdened with features that are difficult to
understand.
That is a different consideration than *convenient to type*. I think it
problematic to project expectations about tools to be used whereas it
is not to assume use of tools that already exist.
> ...
> 10. Terseness is of minimal importance.
>
> Minimizing keystrokes is not deemed important in achieving any of the
> above goals, but other things being equal a concise notation should be
> preferred to a verbose.
Agreed. Common sense.
> SGML isn't going away.
I have no concerns about that.
> If you want all the features of SGML that make
> hand creation convenient (like SHORTREF, SHORTTAG, OMITTAG and so on),
> use SGML.
The features you list are not necessary to *convenient* text editing and
are among those that I will vote to drop along with the quanities,
capacities, abstract vs concrete, etc. I agree with you that *less is
more* for XML.
len bullard
lockheed-martin
References: