• From: Peter Flynn <peter@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sun, 28 May 2023 14:19:19 +0100

On 28/05/2023 13:51, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

On 5/27/2023 4:36 PM, Peter Flynn wrote:

(3) the generated XML is easy to understand.

This decision is not the sponsor's to take, especially if they are not
familiar with XML. The generated (I prefer the word "captured") XML
must be easy to PROCESS; its comprehensibility by unaided and inexpert
humans is of secondary importance. It is often hard to convince
funding agents of this.

I have to disagree. Some of the worst and most ubiquitous XML formats
out there - pretty much anything Apple's done and the generally hideous
OfficeXML - focused on processing, fitting with programmer expectations,
and working with existing obscure object model foundations.  Hiding them
behind tools has only made this worse.

Processing is important, yes, but we absolutely need to value human
comprehensibility to stay out of various flaming dungheaps. (The same
issues apply to URIs and a wide variety of other things that computers
use and humans regularly encounter.)

• References:
  • Editor that is easy to use, generates XML under the hood, andsupports tables?
    • From: Roger L Costello <costello@m...>
  • Re: Editor that is easy to use, generates XML under thehood, and supports tables?
    • From: Peter Flynn <peter@s...>
  • Re: Editor that is easy to use, generates XML under thehood, and supports tables?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>