Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Because it tends to be true. The wet ware dedicates an enormous amount of its resources to visualization and differences based on visual differences. That's why no matter how much one considers layout to be trivial, it is actually fundamental to learning. To me, element elementness is painful. One gets used to it, but the first time up, it hurts. The problem is not learning; it helps there. The problem is managing multiple processable syntaxes in an environment where these artifacts are process and instance constraint controls. Having two versions of the same authoritative information is a political hassle and that becomes a cost hassle. len -----Original Message----- From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...] "J. David Eisenberg" wrote: > >... > Having a non-XML syntax does make teaching easier in many respects. I > found when teaching a beginning XML class that they had less trouble > understanding DTDs than Relax because DTDs don't look like XML. Argh. That's exactly what we predicted when "Schemas in XML syntax" was the rage. They claimed it would be so much easier to teach because the students wouldn't have to learn "another syntax." Others argued it would just confuse people with the similarity!
|
