Hello Marc, > I guess (and this goes back to an earlier > discussion), the "modern" > programmer expects a few things: > > Intellisense prompting > Popup help > Auto completion > On-the-fly syntax checking > Debugging (yes, complex xml needs to be debugged, > IMO) > > In other words, an IDE to make writing xml usable > and promoting xml to a > first class citizen in the world of computer > languages. That's how I'm > planning to address the issue of complexity with xml > programming, rather > than "dumbing down" the syntax. > > Does that answer the question to some degree?
Good points. I agree that having a good IDE helps your productivy and makes discussions about saving a key stroke here or there pretty pointless. I wrote up the compact syntax study after reading up on the compact (non-XML) syntax for Relax NG - a schema language for XML. See http://www.relaxng.org for details. In case of Relax NG the compact non-XML syntax clearly beats the XML syntax. The .value" syntax is inspired by Tcl/Tk which is in a sense a XUL toolkit with a non-XML compact syntax that is out in the wild for more than ten years now. - Gerald ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ xul-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xul-talk
