[Oberon] Re. XML; was Re^2: DAV WebDAV.1.1.0 released

[easlab at absamail.co.za]

> cg> ... much reference to XML. I've always had negative attitude to
>     over use of HTML.  XML seem to be more of the same ?
> 
Peter Easthope wrote:
> Naive observer comments,
> 1. Over the years, there have been complaints that an Oberon 
> Text uses hidden characters to specify format.  
> 
> HTML and XML use visible characters to specify format.
> 
> 2. There have been complaints that the hidden formatting 
> characters followed a syntax which is not published.
> 
> The syntaces of HTML and XML are published by the W3C.  
> http://www.w3.org/
> 
> 3. An Oberon Text is not properly formatted when viewed in a 
> non-Oberon system.
> 
> A non-Oberon system can open HTML fairly well.  Perhaps XML 
> eventually also.
> 
Yes, if the user-base of n-o [and descendants] could be 
maintained/expanded, this could amortise the XML development
costs.   I guess up till now ETH student projects have 'built' the n-o aps ?

> 4. Oberon does not have a pdf viewer.
> 
Why should n-o cater for Adobe which AFAIK is not an ISO standard ?
IMO pdf is like M$-word and top-posters !

My log re. a document which was/is vitally important for me:
linux ->
pdftotext  7403.pdf  7403fdpTxt  == looks OK 
   -> copy to n-o file for analyses !

-rw-r--r--    1 root     root       187752 Oct  9 21:54 7403.pdf
-rw-r--r--    1 root     root        80366 Oct  9 22:15 7403fdpTxt

n-o size after extensive 'colouring' = 83836

I guess the pdf 'formatting' which this doc. had, eg. 'raised' small
font 'foot note numbers' etc. could be done by n-o's html format
in 85KB size.

So it looks to me as if pdf added 233% for 'formatting', and 
n-o would acheive the same with 6%.

But actually the size aspect is irrelevant, compared to the fact
that under n-o I can 'suck the document into my brain' like no
other text presentation system I've ever before experienced.
Why else would I convert from pdf to n-o manipulate-able ?
The extreme ability to 'massage' the text effortlessly adds great
value.

This can't be explained by tecnnical considerations, but involves
psychology, cognition ...etc. which we're not trained in.
You can't make a calculation to prove that JS Bach is 'superior' to
'my boy lollipop'.

The fact that military aircraft [where the best is used] have 
heads-up-control: look at the 'target' and have 'natural'
hand controls; is IMO relevant.

> XML with CSS and W3C languages for specific purposes such as 
> vector graphics, probably have greater capabilities than pdf.
> 
Yes. But that's the wrong question: capability is a technical
attribute. What really counts [once the gee-wizz novelty factor 
is over] is the utility: i.e. how it makes humans more effective.

> Therefore XML might not be so bad.

Well, I'm waiting.  I still remember the predictions for *.net
- was it called ?   An old time UseNet contributor calls these fads
"christmas wrappings" for garbage.
It's easy to get carried away with the style and find there's no
substance.

== Chris Glur