W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2009

Re: HTML and XML

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:34:11 +0100
Message-ID: <49997963.8010906@gmx.de>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>, www-tag@w3.org
Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2009, at 12:06, Julian Reschke wrote:
> ...
> DTDs with errors in major coursework in the presence of oXygen and 
> pretty extensive training is within the past few weeks.
> ...

Were the students told how to test their submissions?

> Second, uhm, well isn't this part of the point? It's hard to evaluate 
> these claims stripped of context. Prima facie, claims of ease of 
> authoring (of any strict computer format) is the *extraordinary* claim, 
> thus requires backing.
> 
> (Also, not all computers run IE :))

Luckily enough most of the others run Firefox. Or xmlint.

> I would think that the main point is that in isolation simplicity is 
> not, itself, a reliable indicator of over all usability. I would be very 
> interested to have good evidence that XML formats have good usability 
> (and in what circumstances).

I think the usability of XML depends on the knowledge of the people 
using it. Users authoring docbook or XSLTs do not seem have trouble with 
it. On the other hand, users thinking that XHTML somehow is simply a 
newer form of HTML, not understanding the underlying differences, fail 
miserably.

In all cases though, *testing* the document using conforming software 
will highlight errors early on.

BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 16 February 2009 14:35:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:12 GMT