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

[Mason, James David (MXM)]

\rho wrote: If conjecture [A] is true, my argument, then, would be "if =
XTM (+
DTD/Relax/Schema) cannot guarantee that my content which I put in with =
this
nifty-hefty-trendy XML development thingy is TMDM-sane, how does XTM =
editing
make sense at all?"


It makes just about the same sense as editing any XML document. That is =
to
say, given almost any DTD/schema and a syntax-directed editor, I can =
write a
document that is syntactically valid but is otherwise nonsense. I've =
been
generating documents like that for the whole 20-odd years I've been =
messing
with SGML/XML because I need test cases to run software on, but I don't =
care
about their content.=20

Content is the author's responsibility. If I want my XML file to make =
sense,
I'm responsible for making sense, and there's no schema language on =
earth
that can enforce that for the kinds of information with which I work.

However, syntax-directed editors are useful because they allow me to
concentrate on content, not writing code wrappers for content. I knew =
even
before I got into computing that my typing skills were somewhat limited, =
and
even at the beginning of SGML I needed a syntax-directed editor to =
protect me
from my fingers.=20

I don't care whether CTM can be typed in Notepad. I don't care that XTM =
is
verbose. Given a choice between typing CTM in Notepad and generating XTM =
in
one of the syntax-directed editors on my machine, I'll go with the
syntax-directed editor every time. I'll even pay money for =
syntax-directed
editors to do that (and I have).

Jim Mason