Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Anthony Coates wrote > ... don't give me this old line about viewing the source being > the only true and pure way to do things. Paul Prescod wrote > I think that it is a fallacy that visual is always easier than textual. From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@f...] > A point-and-click IDE might be an effective way > to assemble a working application from prepackaged > components, but that isn't programming. I believe > something similar is true for schema design. From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> > Elitist. :-) Maybe there are two tribes: * one sees XML as a way to allow custom syntax-constraining GUIs manipulating objects not code. * the other sees XML as a way to *escape* from requiring custom GUIs, preferring generic syntax-aware (text- and symbol- and tree-/list-/table- based) tools. Proponents of the first view might say "WXS is great, because now I have a clear set of components that I can make icons for and put in a pallette". Proponents of the second view might say "the WXS language is badly designed, because its inheritence structures rely on non-standard reference mechanisms that a generic XML editor cannot use." Perhaps it should be a business question rather than an abstract one. Custom GUIs cost time and money and need a maintenance effort; they have a bad name for being slow, poor with large documents, and inflexible. But sometimes that might be warranted (i.e. for cashed-up departments, very static document types--like successful public schemas--, and small documents). However, by the same token, sometimes custom GUIs may be counter-productive. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
