Ralph Hartley wrote:
> I have trouble seeing how a "generic XML editor" could even be close, in
> ease of use, to a rather simple "CaveXML editor".
Simply typing XML will probably never be a helpful and quick as using
soemthing that knows all about CaveXML. I'm just using that idea of
a low-level tool as a measure of the complexity of what we might be
inventing. Maybe this is not a useful measure.
Don't let this stop anyone from developing a CaveXML editor.
> I would expect that entering data tag by tag with an XML editor
> would be "clunky" to say the least, regardless of how much we simplified
> the format.
I'm sure that is the case, but it probably beats a text editor! :-)
> Actually I sort of assume that (at least until CaveXML
> tools become universally available) most people will enter data using
> whatever tools they use now. In a sense, that makes the tool specific
> format a "pre-canonical" form. Converting halfway from there doesn't
> make sense to me.
I wasn't thinking of converting some proprietary form to some overly
simplfied "pre-canonical" form, but thinking of someone who doesn't have
anything proprietar, but still wanting to generate what they can. But
if there was simple CaveXML editor that could certainly help.
-Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 18:00:00 CEST