3 ms·
In a past life for a short while (around 2006/2008'ish I'd say) I used XEmacs instead of Emacs because XEmacs could do one thing Emacs couldn't: real-time "Rela
by TacticalCoder 3y ago
In a past life for a short while (around 2006/2008'ish I'd say) I used XEmacs instead of Emacs because XEmacs could do one thing Emacs couldn't: real-time "Relax NG" schema validation.
It was kinda a big deal for me back then as I was working, IIRC, on DocBook documents which were validated using a Relax NG schema.
> I don't really miss XEmacs, but it's always cool when old programs still get some love.
I agree. But then I'm using Emacs daily. I'd miss XEmacs much more if I hadn't the opportunity to use Emacs! Still, as you sa, it's good to see XEmacs getting some love.
- davidpolberger 3y agoYou're probably referring to the wonderful nXML mode, which has been a part of stock Emacs for years now: https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/nxml-mode.html https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_mono/nxml-mod...
- TacticalCoder 3y ago> You're probably referring to the wonderful nXML mode But wasn't there an issue where early nxml mode for Emacs would not support the Relax NG using the XML syntax? I vaguely remember the compact Relax NG syntax being supported but not the XML one. And for whatever reason that XML syntax for Relax NG was supported under XEmacs. It was really a long time ago so my memory is very fussy but something like that. Since then I switched back to Emacs and I do use nxml-mode (I don't use Relax NG anymore though).