>>> Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 20-Apr-00 12:22:19 AM >>> >I didn't say that. But such a tool is _much_ easier to write >for XML than for WebMacro. Can't see why... XML is more structuted but that would probably mean a lot of work... I don't want to but I bet given an hour and a half I could melt one of the GNOME HTML editors into dealing with simple Webmacro issues like variables. Don't understand really why Mr.Webmacro hasn't already done it. >No problem? I wish you luck matching what we can do >with XML and schemas I couldn't match what you could do in fucntionality but I'd get an 80% worthy tool out the door quicker than an XML tool could be done. Not because I'm better than you but because all the bits aren't there for XML yet but I'd just have to hack an existing piece of kit. >> That is after all the power of free software. >??? I meant that the source is available and all I gotta do is hack someone's existing HTML editor to make it deal with Webmacro. Whilst on the other hand you have to go and build a whole new tool. When you've finished *I know* it will be excellent but till then... >Sure, people that are scared to death about it and try to >learn it the hard way (from the spec) instead of the easy >way (install Cocoon and play around). Sure... How many designers do you know Stefano? The ones I know are happy if they can download the Guiness screensaver (apologies to any designers out there). >And I _know_ what I'm talking about here. I wrote >Cocoon exactly because I could not understand the spec :) Cool. I think it's a great piece of kit. I'm not knocking it. >This is my personal vision: >1) XML will _NOT_ replace HTML. It's like saying >that UNICODE will replace HTTP... it's a semantic >nonsense. Have to say I disagree with you there. I can't see why you'd want to use HTML once the following happens: 1. XML is reliably in the browser 2. you can easily apply a stylesheet to it (either CSS or XSL look <whatever it's called - can't remember right now /8->) 3. there are tools for people who don't want to learn what the word semantics means - let alone apply it to a page they're working on >2) HTML is perfect for its job: simply-structured >hyperlinked information. It will probably migrate to >XHTML to create more solid parsing (to avoid the >side-scripting security holes of things like <b<script ....>> >that IE parse with no problems! yuch!) but the language >will remain the same and people won't have troubles >to figure it out. I personally think that will happen in the medium term, 2-3 years. After that (say 4-5 years) XML will have all the 3 conditions above. >3) global XML adoption will happen gradually and will >move on from the server side (unlike the w3c first >assumed) Probably right about that. Nic Ferrier -- ---------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/main/mail.html> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
