- From: Todd Freter <Todd.Freter@Eng.Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Dave Peterson <davep@acm.org>
- cc: W3C SGML Working Group <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
Dave Peterson writes: > At 7:44 AM 4/30/97, Todd Freter wrote: > > >XML's ease of implementation and ease of use for hand-coders should be a > >significant plank in any positioning and marketing of XML. Certainly XML's > >ease of use should be more fundamental than "the customer is always right." > > "Ease of use" or "ease of implementation"? "The customer" usually wants > what he considers "easy to use", whether it's a good idea or not. I guess I mean that it's not only easy for application developers to implement XML but also for document creators to produce well-formed XML, even when they are coding by hand. It just isn't that hard. > When you argue for "ease of use" of XML, remember that the document creator > as well as the document reader is a "user" of XML. OMITTAG (which is > essentially an error-recovery mechanism embodied in SGML to the point > where if you can use it to recover, the trigger is not considered an > error after all) was, I believe, introduced for "ease of use for > hand-coders". Are you asking for something like that? It sounds like you're > arguing the other way. Which may be a good idea, but the user might argue > that it's not making XML easier to use. Earlier, Paul Prescod argued that the goal with XML should be correct documents, and I think that's right. And Tim's compelling point is that XML's well-formedness characteristics are easy to achieve. I'm not asking for anything like OMITTAG. You're right; I'm arguing the other way. OMITTAG makes sense in a setting where validation is a constant concern, but in XML validation is optional, and something like OMITTAG could be problematic without a DTD's context in which to interpret markup. If in XML you have neither a DTD nor reliable standards for well-formedness, you don't have much. I doubt that XML will lose much of its constituency if XML hand coders are required to enter closing tags. I think those customers will rely on parsers, "lint"-type tools or strength of character to insure well-formedness. If XML proliferates as much in the next 18 months as some people predict, there will be desirable markets for robust XML authoring tools. The other "ease of use"-seeking customers will probably not be unserved. Look at what GRIF has done already with their XML+CSS tool. It's just the beginning. -Todd.
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 1997 11:43:36 UTC