- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:11:04 +0000
- To: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Jonathan A Rees" <rees@mumble.net>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Anne, I think that Henry is attempting to capture the distinction between document-documents (human-authored documents) and data-documents (machine-created documents) rather than saying that writing the characters that make up XML documents is something that humans want to do. Can you think of a better term for 'human-authored' that doesn't imply people physically writing tags? Jeni On 8 Mar 2012, at 20:31, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > 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/ > -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 21:11:30 UTC