3 ms·
XML may be a good choice to markup the structure and formatting of a technical document. That doesn't make it a good human readable and writable format.
by MattPalmer1086 3y ago
XML may be a good choice to markup the structure and formatting of a technical document.
That doesn't make it a good human readable and writable format.
- macintux 3y agoNotice that the description didn’t say it was a good format in that regard.
- MattPalmer1086 3y agoAha, very true! It is human readable and writeable after all, just not very pleasant.
- joshmarinacci 3y agoThe ideal interface would be a WYSIWYM (what you see is what you mean) word processor like app that let you edit the markup visually, but using a semantic representation rather than strict WYSIWYG. Thus you can write without having to know too much of the syntax, but still be producing strict markup. I recall such editors existing about 20 years ago. I guess the market for XML tool died.
- chrisweekly 3y agoYou just described Obsidian. Its UX atop .md files is simply amazing.
- d4mi3n 3y agoLogseq is another contender in this vertical: https://logseq.com/ https://logseq.com/
- teleforce 3y agoFor maths and scientific publications with WYSIWYG approach check TeXmacs: https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/welcome.en.html https://www.texmacs.org/tmweb/home/welcome.en.html Please note that despite the name it has nothing to do with TeX or Emacs.
- j45 3y agoNo reason tooling can’t help with the reading and writing. The computer is supposed to read xml, not people. XML isn’t my first choice most days but there exist cases where it still readily flexes past other option no matter how popular.