Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax

Subject: Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax
From: Chris von See <cvonsee@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 20:16:06 -0500
>On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Chris von See wrote:
>> If I read this correctly, the implicit assumption is that all of these
>> languages need to be capable of being hand-coded by relative newbies...
>> I've seen other comments in this list say that this is in fact a goal of
>> XML and XSL, but I tend to disagree that we should make that a *primary*
>> goal.  I believe that we should not subjugate developing powerful tools to
>> developing a syntax that "feels as if it belongs together". 
At 04:27 PM 8/26/98 -0400, Paul Prescod wrote:
>Why do you believe that these goals diverge? Usually, they do not. An 
>elegant design is simple enough for newbies and scales to do the powerful 
>things that experts want to do. The string-based query language seems 
>relativly simple and scalable, so we need not choose between those 
>(usually linked) design criteria.
I'm coming at this from a slightly different perspective...

As a software developer, if someone came to me asking for a hypermedia tool
that could do what XML/XSL can do, and I felt strongly that they would
prefer a graphical interface for working with this tool (which I do in this
case), then I would focus on making the underlying technology (i.e.
XML/XSL) as powerful as possible and put all the "simplicity" in the GUIs.

My past personal experience has been that there isn't necessarily a
divergence between simplicity and power; however, in many cases designing
things like XML/XSL to be simple enough for newbies takes up a ton of time
and effort that could be better spent on designing specialized graphical
interfaces that address the particular usage issues that come with the
various uses of XML/XSL itself.  Even in the very small time I've been on
this list, I've seen a variety of perspectives on using XML/XSL, from
"replace HTML" to the recent comments about EDI.  These audiences all have
different experiences, different thought processes, different approaches to
solving problems; to make XML/XSL as "marketable" (gasp!) as it could be,
I'd want to slant my development efforts toward products that meet their
specific needs, but are all based on a common technology.

Just two cents worth... nothing more.

True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,
As those move easiest who have learn'd to dance.

-- Pope, "Essay on Criticism, II"

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread