- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:31:33 +0100
- To: "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: "Jonathan A Rees" <rees@mumble.net>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 18:47:13 +0100, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > Here's a go at some text for the XML paragraph > > XML provides a simple standardised way to serialize information > representable as labelled trees with annotations and > cross-references, allowing a free choice of markup vocabulary. This > not only makes it well-suited for human-authored documents, > particularly given its facility for mixed content (plain and > marked-up text) and built-in support for Unicode, but also means it > is a useful syntax for all kinds of machine-to-machine data > transfer. XHTML, Docbook and DITA are examples of XML-based > languages primarily intended for documents; machine-to-machine uses > include UPnP (for networked device discovery) and AEMP (for > construction equipment). Hasn't there been ample evidence that XML is pretty bad for human authoring? There's at least plenty of anecdotal evidence from a couple of years ago where people have time and again demonstrated how hard it is to author and make basic blog software work with it (Mark Pilgrim, Sam Ruby, Jacques Distler, ...). -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 20:32:55 UTC