Rich XML writing tools
I read with intrigue Jon Udell's OSCOM keynote slides. The fundamental subject is the means by which to compose the web "in a rich way" – and by "rich" he implies semantic. Udell discusses there being an absence of simple to-utilize XML composing devices for the Web. Weblog apparatuses are easy to use and they are the executioner application for web composing, however they come up short on the capacity to make organized XML data. Content Management Systems then again have progressed toward becoming enlarged with highlights, making it hard for non-specialized individuals to utilize them.
Udell proposes that basic dosages of metadata, added reliably to basic markup, for example, titles or class properties, will help weblogs and CMSs alike carry semantic structure to Web composing.
I completed an inquiry around the Web on this subject. There is by all accounts some confounding wording out there. Right off the bat in regards to rich content tools – "rich" in these items alludes to presentational markup. For instance: striking, italics, underline, slug, indent, textual style type. These items fundamentally imitate what mainstream word-preparing programming does. Correspondingly when Macromedia talk about a Rich Internet Application, they mean a Flash-based program application. I accept when Udell discusses expressing "rich" Web content, he is looking at including structure and importance.
Keeping in touch with the Web is the thing that weblogs and CMSs are about. Having the option to add metadata to Web content, without having to handcode XML or feed a CMS beast, is the sacred goal for these apparatuses. As a Davenet from 2000 expressed: "… effortlessness is the single greatest thing that is in the method for the Web as a simple composition condition". RSS2.0 is a genuine case of a basic and straightforward XML position, which still has rich usefulness. We need a similar straightforwardness and extravagance in the devices we use to keep in touch with the Web.
Udell proposes that basic dosages of metadata, added reliably to basic markup, for example, titles or class properties, will help weblogs and CMSs alike carry semantic structure to Web composing.
I completed an inquiry around the Web on this subject. There is by all accounts some confounding wording out there. Right off the bat in regards to rich content tools – "rich" in these items alludes to presentational markup. For instance: striking, italics, underline, slug, indent, textual style type. These items fundamentally imitate what mainstream word-preparing programming does. Correspondingly when Macromedia talk about a Rich Internet Application, they mean a Flash-based program application. I accept when Udell discusses expressing "rich" Web content, he is looking at including structure and importance.
Keeping in touch with the Web is the thing that weblogs and CMSs are about. Having the option to add metadata to Web content, without having to handcode XML or feed a CMS beast, is the sacred goal for these apparatuses. As a Davenet from 2000 expressed: "… effortlessness is the single greatest thing that is in the method for the Web as a simple composition condition". RSS2.0 is a genuine case of a basic and straightforward XML position, which still has rich usefulness. We need a similar straightforwardness and extravagance in the devices we use to keep in touch with the Web.
Comments
Post a Comment