On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:31:29 +0100, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2007-02-07 14:03:44 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> But for xhtml, there is a perfectly fine DTD, and one can easily
>> generate DTD's for anything with a XML schema; so this is very
>> rarely an issue in practice
On 2007-02-07 14:03:44 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> But for xhtml, there is a perfectly fine DTD, and one can
> easily generate DTD's for anything with a XML schema; so this is
> very rarely an issue in practice.
I don't think one can always generate a DTD. There are lots of XML
file
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 12:20:06 +0100, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2007-02-06 08:19:50 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:12:33 +0100, Vincent Lefevre
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > PSGML is for SGML, not for XML editing (though it may appear to
>> > work wi
On 2007-02-06 08:19:50 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:12:33 +0100, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > PSGML is for SGML, not for XML editing (though it may appear to work
> > with some XML documents).
>
> Do you have an XML DTD for which PSGML fails to wo
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 13:12:33 +0100, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2007-02-02 09:29:41 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Package: psgml Description: An Emacs major mode for editing SGML
>> documents. PSGML is a major mode for the editor Emacs used for
>> editing SGML
> PSGML is f
On 2007-02-02 09:29:41 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Package: psgml
> Description: An Emacs major mode for editing SGML documents.
> PSGML is a major mode for the editor Emacs used for editing SGML
PSGML is for SGML, not for XML editing (though it may appear to work
with some XML documents).
On 2007-02-02 22:32:02 +, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On 2007-02-02, hendrik wrote:
> > As a developer, I also inderstand that XML is a crazily complicated
> > specification, probably much more complicated than needed to do its job.
I'd say it's not that complicated compared to other languages.
> F
s. keeling wrote:
Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:10:06 +0100, Wim De Smet wrote:
On 2/1/07, Johannes Graumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am crawling through the web on a search for a proper XML editor, that makes
What are you looking for?
Reid Priedhorsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:10:06 +0100, Wim De Smet wrote:
> > On 2/1/07, Johannes Graumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am crawling through the web on a search for a proper XML editor, that makes
> >
> > What are you looking for? I think most people us
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:10:06 +0100, Wim De Smet wrote:
> On 2/1/07, Johannes Graumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi there,
>
> Hi.
>
>>
>> Am crawling through the web on a search for a proper XML editor, that makes
>> life easier and speaks XSD ... got suckered into a trial license of oxygen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/07 21:32, ChadDavis wrote:
[snip]
>
> However, once I know the details well, I am getting paid by the hour,
> so I'm not going to pass up auto-magic if I can find it. I'm quite
Finally an honest contractor. Most reserve the time-saving dev
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 16:24 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 12:23:17PM -0800, RParr wrote:
> > Johannes Graumann wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I find it somewhat ironic. Most of the programming
> > development IDEs force you to use a less than vi-or-emacs level editing
> >
If you want Whizzbang, Wizard style, auto-magic crap, then why use a
powerful OS?
I use vim when learning a language and then usually try to find power
tools ( auto-magic ) to speed up rote tasks once I know what I'm
doing. From my point of view, and learning style, and obsessive
compulsion t
On 2007-02-02, hendrik wrote:
[]
> As a developer, I also inderstand that XML is a crazily complicated
> specification, probably much more complicated than needed to do its job.
Full ACK!
BTW, emacs' (one of) xml mode editing (named nxml, i believe), was s
slwly on my 2G AMD64 laptop, so
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 12:23:17PM -0800, RParr wrote:
> Johannes Graumann wrote:
>
> Actually, I find it somewhat ironic. Most of the programming
> development IDEs force you to use a less than vi-or-emacs level editing
> environment and brag about their ability to enhance productivity through
Johannes Graumann wrote:
Greg Folkert wrote:
These are to Oxygen what nano is to emacs ... childsplay.
If you want Whizzbang, Wizard style, auto-magic crap, then why use a
powerful OS?
I say its:
"Go back to Windows and Visual * something studio Pro-Live-Vista Crap"
And leave our
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:04:29 +0100, Wim De Smet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On 2/1/07, Johannes Graumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi there,
> Hi.
>>
>> Am crawling through the web on a search for a proper XML editor,
>> that makes life easier and speaks XSD ... got suckered into a trial
>>
On 2/1/07, Johannes Graumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi there,
Hi.
Am crawling through the web on a search for a proper XML editor, that makes
life easier and speaks XSD ... got suckered into a trial license of oxygen
for Eclipse ... and am loving it ...
Desperation takes over: is there n
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 08:52 +0100, Johannes Graumann wrote:
> Greg Folkert wrote:
>
> >> These are to Oxygen what nano is to emacs ... childsplay.
> >
> > If you want Whizzbang, Wizard style, auto-magic crap, then why use a
> > powerful OS?
> >
> > I say its:
> >
> > "Go back to Windows and Vis
Greg Folkert wrote:
>> These are to Oxygen what nano is to emacs ... childsplay.
>
> If you want Whizzbang, Wizard style, auto-magic crap, then why use a
> powerful OS?
>
> I say its:
>
> "Go back to Windows and Visual * something studio Pro-Live-Vista Crap"
>
> And leave our "unpretty" but ex
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 23:53 +0100, Johannes Graumann wrote:
> Greg Folkert wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 23:09 +0100, Johannes Graumann wrote:
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> Am crawling through the web on a search for a proper XML editor, that
> >> makes life easier and speaks XSD ... got suckered
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/01/07 16:55, Johannes Graumann wrote:
> I'd prefer to concentrate on my xml rather than on the editor ...
Learn vim and you won't need to concentrate on the editor.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFwnbhS9
I'd prefer to concentrate on my xml rather than on the editor ...
Joh
Mathias Brodala wrote:
> Hello Johannes.
>
> Johannes Graumann, 01.02.2007 23:09:
>> Am crawling through the web on a search for a proper XML editor, that
>> makes life easier and speaks XSD ... got suckered into a trial lice
Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 23:09 +0100, Johannes Graumann wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Am crawling through the web on a search for a proper XML editor, that
>> makes life easier and speaks XSD ... got suckered into a trial license of
>> oxygen for Eclipse ... and am loving it ...
>>
Hello Johannes.
Johannes Graumann, 01.02.2007 23:09:
> Am crawling through the web on a search for a proper XML editor, that makes
> life easier and speaks XSD ... got suckered into a trial license of oxygen
> for Eclipse ... and am loving it ...
> Desperation takes over: is there no NICE XML edit
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 23:09 +0100, Johannes Graumann wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Am crawling through the web on a search for a proper XML editor, that makes
> life easier and speaks XSD ... got suckered into a trial license of oxygen
> for Eclipse ... and am loving it ...
> Desperation takes over: is t
Hi there,
Am crawling through the web on a search for a proper XML editor, that makes
life easier and speaks XSD ... got suckered into a trial license of oxygen
for Eclipse ... and am loving it ...
Desperation takes over: is there no NICE XML editor that's licensed
compatibly with the Debian guide
27 matches
Mail list logo
