[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-lcsc] Re: Position Paper on List Containers
Chee-Kai: While I agree with much of what you say about looking forward, I must disagree that we can ignore totally ubiquitous tools such as Internet Explorer. Most people in my experience do use IE5.* or 6 to browse XML because it provides a collapsible view that many text editors do not. Also, the existence of collapsible tree-view and folder-based hierarchies in XML editing tools and document management systems is very common. (Jon's arguments about readability stands, if only because the IE is an example of a much more common UI behavior around XML.) Cheers, Arofan >>In section 6, you mention readability. If you read XML documents using >>Notepad or vi, container elements do not help readability. However, >>if you use a folding XML editor/viewer, even Internet Explorer, >>containers are great for folding up a repeated group of elements that >>you do not want to look at. You do not need hundreds, nor even >>thousands, of items for this to be true. I'd say we should not fall into the trap of accomodating current generation of tools as a guideline for designing standards. Going by your argument seems to suggest that we shouldn't use XML at all, since XML elements appear to be too verbose, and non-intuitive when viewed using Notepad or vi, that we should probably go back to ASCII-based, position-dependent, courier fixed-font sized, CRLF-terminated encodings instead because that assist text editors most. We should look ahead. That when dusts have settled within UBL, and with some successful usage deployment of UBL, UBL-oriented tools would appear regardless of whether there is or not containers. These could pack more segmentation and re-assembly features to present instance documents in more intelligible manner to humans, so much so that with or without containers, the information management is simple. This makes any viewing advantage presented by container rules a non-advantage (not necessarily a disadvantage, but certainly with simple but good UBL-apps, information is easily managed and viewed with or without containers). A "foldable" button would look primitive in comparison. In short, if we stay happy with horse carriages, we'll plan our lives around its limitations, and probably won't think of inventing motor vehicles. Best Regards, Chin Chee-Kai SoftML Tel: +65-6820-2979 Fax: +65-6743-7875 Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net http://SoftML.Net/ To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-lcsc/members/leave_work group.php.