• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: human-readability
• From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:48:24 +1100
• Delivered-to: xml-dev@m...
• References: <200111130008.AAA18294@p...><357961160.1005638406@[192.168.0.152]>

From: "James Clark" <jjc@j...>

> In a case where a server might be sending either XML or something else like 
> HTML or PDF, then we are typically dealing with a human-readable document, 
> which means that the XML is going to need a stylesheet.  

This triggered off something that I wanted to post in response to some recent
but now-lost posting on XML-DEV.

There is a difference between a notation such as XML being human-readable
and structure/data expressed as XML documents being human-comprehensible.

One might almost say that the more the markup is difficult to comprehend,
the more headstart developers have that is at least the document is readable. 

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by Date: Re: IDs considered harmful or why keys might be better thanIDs...
• Previous by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Next by thread: Re: So maybe ID isn't a problem after all.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread