Re: MicroXML is for hand | automated generation

On 26 July 2012 03:22, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> James said "Maybe we should add something like "MicroXML shall support
>> the use of
>> text editors for authoring" as a goal."
>>
>> One quite simple positive for uxml (for me) is to ease human
>> comprehension,
>> for an author. I.e. the handwritten document should be the prime use case.
>>
>> On that basis I would see automated generation as secondary.
>
>
> Well MicroXML as largely discussed so far would also simplify automated
> generation. All the XML generation tools I've developed are complicated
> because of the many knobs required to cover XML.  MicroXML would simplify
> such code. I think it would also reduce the areas in which automated
> generation could get itself into trouble.  I see no reason why a goal cannot
> mention both, e.g.:
>
> MicroXML shall support the use of text editors for authoring, and shall also
> make automated generation of MicroXML simpler than XML.


-1 for a couple of reasons Uche?
It's relative, not really measurable?
It's a shift, I suggested automated production of XML be not allowed
to take precedence
over manual generation, should the choice have to be made?

If it works as you suggest, then fine, I just didn't want it to take a priority?

regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 04:54:41 UTC