- From: <MarkH@i2.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:58:35 -0000
- To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org
- Cc: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
-----Original Message----- From: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk [SMTP:ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 11:45 AM Subject: Re: XML Schema = obfuscation RE: Is this valid? > Not sure I understand what you mean by complex tools. complex in terms of to implement, obtain and use. all of which are higher barriers to overcome than a text editor. now i know editing DTDs as text isn't everyone's idea of fun, but it is more than just feasible, and so DTDs are inherently more accessible. i didn't mean that specialist DTD editors are great! this is partly because a DTDs is more readable than xml, and partly because they are less capable and so less rich (ie complex) than XML-Schemas. > Any DTD-aware XML > editor, of which there are now lots, including lots for free, makes > editing an XML Schema easier than editing a DTD, in my experience. i've not found many usable schema editors for my platform (Wintel). in fact, the only one i've found reliable enough for serious work is your own XED which, grateful as I am for it, is not fantastic (no offence!). xml spy looks promising but is not yet reliable and still has a lot of ui problems (imo). i downloaded 3.5 beta 2 today and so will give that a try, but for the time being i'm probably going to use XED and XSV. henry, please accept my thanks and appreciation for all your work - you are doing a great job both offline and in helping people like me through your active participation in this mailing list. mark -- Agile HTML Editor Agilic Corporation http://www.agilic.com
Received on Monday, 4 December 2000 07:04:26 UTC