Hi Charles, Technically speaking about XML I concur with your vision of problems and benefits and find your questions, hints and remarks very helpful.
>First, by dusting off that old Kenton quote (a favorite of technology >salesmen everywhere), are you implying that just because MS Word "ain't >broke" is no reason _not_ to foist deep XML structures upon CMS >users? Sorry so polemic, but I feel I am responding in kind. In your last post (that is why I answered in that way) I got the impression that the focus was not really XML Editors and XML in general and in terms of technology, but more of a rant about how usually bad the first versions of Microsoft packages (DAO, VB3, COM?, MS XML Library, .NET problems, Visual Studio .NET, VB.NET, etc), which I can say more or less regarding software production in general (Java, J2EE, lack of compliance, memory leaks, lack of good database drivers, etc). But because there are some exceptions, one has to evaluate them all carefully and that was what I was trying to say in my last post. But your opinion (maybe I got it wrong) it seams to be inclined to avoid Office 11, and Visual Studio .NET altogether until 2004 or later altogether. This is may be the best course of action in business terms from the point of view of users but not for developers IMO. Don't get me wrong as you I also consider that any software is much less then perfect in the first 3 versions, but I don't consider that avoiding the XML features of massive software product as a Microsoft Office is a good policy when thinking about user's and cost contention, especially when they have ~70%-90% of the market. The reasons why is that I consider that for good or for the bad XML as a editing format will become mainstream due to Office (not more a set of features made for a niche market for free or really expensive), and this can only be good for developers and most CMS vendors (Open Source or not). >Second, you do not respond to or acknowledge some of the difficulties in >defining flexible XML schemas. Specifically, XSD makes it difficult to >define elements as containers for XHTML. At best, it is a cumbersome, >brute force task. Back to XML I'll let the thread roll on a wee bit longer (buying myself some time to do other things:). I'm also waiting for my Beta version of Office 11. Best regards, Independent Consultant. -- http://cms-list.org/ trim your replies for good karma.
