• To: Don Box <dbox@m...>
• Subject: Re: XML IDE: What are the top 3 and why?
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 07:17:44 -0700
• Cc: "Long, Craig Z" <craig.long@e...>, xml-dev@l...
• References: <CFC4F26947496E4092489B24256149580501E40C@s...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1a) Gecko/20020610

Don Box wrote:
> I and most of my friends use Emacs. The NT version has been pretty
> stable for at least a year

Er, many years.  Also, Windows emacs is better than *n*x emacs because 
there is *no confusion* over which keys are backspace/delete, and no 
escape sequences, and the names for F-keys and so on never change.  I 
haven't changed my .emacs on windows for years and years, and I have to 
fiddle with it on linux/unix systems whenever I change terminal 
emulators or versions or look away from the screen too long.  (Oooh, I'm 
gonna get flamed).

>, and the built-in SGML mode has proven more
> than functional (for me at least). 

And if you don't like it you can write your own; lots of us have. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML IDE: What are the top 3 and why?
    • From: "Morgan V. Cundiff" <mcundiff@l...>

• References:
  • RE: XML IDE: What are the top 3 and why?
    • From: "Don Box" <dbox@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Next by Date: Re: version numbers and infosets
• Previous by thread: RE: XML IDE: What are the top 3 and why?
• Next by thread: Re: XML IDE: What are the top 3 and why?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread