Why ask why
Why does the attribute-list for the outline-element not include an "id"-attribute?
How is one supposed to reference a certain outline within the OML-file?
Why is the "data"-element used instead of an "item"-element with a "name"-attribute of "data"?
Braindead specification, even more so than OPML.
- You're asking wrong people. Please ask the OML spec authors. This is an encyclopedia, not a file format advocacy site, and talk pages are meant for discussion about the articles, not the subjects of the articles. If you have problems with the article, please do tell. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems someone attempted to remove pro-OML POV text and in the process inserted a lot of pro-OPML/anti-OML text. I wouldn't have thought there would be much "controversy" over simple outlining formats, but I guess that's the case here. I'll modify both OML and OPML articles later to be more extensive, clean, consistent in style and less POV. Nathan J. Yoder 16:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- You would be surprised to hear how annoyed people can get over the formats. I tried to clean up the mess a little bit and removed the NPOV tag. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, some criticisms...
I'm dealing with criticisms in this article thus:
"By storing the content in the <text>-attribute, OML makes it impossible to save line-breaks (or you have to use your own, application-specific encoding, which is contrary to the supposed goal of becoming a standard)" -- Well, regrettably, this is XML we're talking about, which doesn't think whitespace is relevant at all. Same criticism could be said of any XML format. Want to parse linebreaks? Write a parser that handles them. Or ask the OML folks to add an attribute that explicitly asks to preserve whitespace.
"By allowing both the text-attribute and the -element to store the main-content, it is always unclear which one to use: text, data, or a concatenation of both" -- If they're equal alternatives, and if you can't decide, stick to something and use it. Duh.
"The artificial distinction between <item> and is completely unnecessary; one could easily use <item name="data">foo bar</item> instead of foo bar, which would be more consistent" -- Yeah, just like HTML has <em> and &em;strong&em; who needs them when we have <span>. See above.
I don't really see them as criticisms of OML. The best I can say about that would be something I came up for this article now: "Critics of OML point out OML doesn't have a mechanism to preserve whitespace. Some have also found the distinction between <item> and unnecessary." Any better? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The site at the so-called "official site" link is in fact for the "Open Macro Library" for the programming language C. As far as I can see, this is completely unrelated, and the link should be changed to the correct homepage if one can be found, or removed altogether if not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)