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

[Robert Barta]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 08:53:37AM -0400, Mason, James David (MXM) wrote:
> \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?"

> 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.

So it is all well for you to expose 'authors' to the enormous overhead
of creating XML without actually helping them with the REALLY
IMPORTANT ISSUE, namely whether what they create makes sense in terms
of the model they are working against?

Note, that I am not talking about the "makes sense" in the the sense
of the application domain.

> 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.

I appreciate that there are people with such an approach to computing.
These should buy the development tools which guide them through a
given world.

But I would like you to appreciate the fact that there are many
engineers out there who very easily pick up languages. In these
communities XML is regarded as useful, but (quote) 'useful bloatware'.

> 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).

Geesh :-) Have mercy with your employees.

\rho