xml:id RE: [sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question

[Lars Marius Garshol]

* Lars Marius Garshol
|
| What's the problem?

* Robert Barta
| 
| The 'violation' is the 'problem'. I do not think XTM (or TMDM) should
| try to fix this. It is, as it is.

When you wrote "I wonder whether this all works", I took it to mean
that you had some concern about how TMDM/XTM handled the example you
posted. Now it seems that you don't. Did I understand you correctly?
 
| And this was exactly my counterargument Re: Bertrand. If he claims
| that an XML editor 'guides' an author appropriately and there is no
| need for tools to _really_ check whether the map is TMDM conformant
| (what did we talk about in the last years?)...

Ah, OK. I didn't see that that's what you were arguing. I certainly
agree that XML editors, even though they can use the schema to guide
you, don't really provide full guidance. They don't know all the rules
for what is allowed, nor can they help you much with references, etc
etc

And that, I guess, highlights another point in this discussion. We're
not creating CTM to make life easier for end-users. End-users should
use a proper editor. We're standardizing what's already a commonly
used tool among developers (LTM/AsTMa=), and we're doing it because
it's needed for TMQL, anyway.
 
| ...then the shown violation is the argument that an XML-based
| language is in no other position, than a non-XML based language.
| 
| Not?

Well, a plain XML editor gives you a bit more guidance, but in
principle the situation is the same.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >