«

I was looking around for XML editors and searching through this group,
I found:

http://www.oxygenxml.com/
http://www.xmlmind.com/
http://www.editix.com/
http://www.exchangerxml.com/

The primary requirement is that the editor runs under both Windows XP
and MacOSX.

I was wondering if anyone would care to give their recommendation(s) or
opinion(s) on what editors to avoid (because they crash often, simply
don't work well, etc.).

Is there an editor or two out there that are considered to be
'top-of-the-line'?

If you have done your own comparative analysis of the various
available editors, I would be interested what your criteria was and why
you selected the editor you did.

thank you.

For whatever it's worth, I mostly just use an old release of Emacs in
its SGML mode. (I suspect newer versions have a real XML mode, which
would probably be a better choice.) It's simple, it works, it supports
unicode, it's just helpful enough and it stays out of my way.

XML's simple enough that I rarely feel the need for much editing assistance.

there is also altova xml spy and xmetal and emacs nxml mode

I personally use oXygen on Win XP and emacs nxml mode on Linux. oXygen
has a lot of nice features but can be slow because it's written in
Java. emacs nxml mode is fairly quick, but does not have as many
features. nxml mode notably lacks the ability to dynamically pull
xincludes into memory for validation (so the schema must allow
xincludes everywhere).

If this is your first big plunge into XML, it might help if you tell
people what you intend to edit.

Eric wrote:
> I was looking around for XML editors and searching through this group,
> I found:
>
> http://www.oxygenxml.com/
> http://www.xmlmind.com/
> http://www.editix.com/
> http://www.exchangerxml.com/
>
> The primary requirement is that the editor runs under both Windows XP
> and MacOSX.
>
> I was wondering if anyone would care to give their recommendation(s) or
> opinion(s) on what editors to avoid (because they crash often, simply
> don't work well, etc.).
>
> Is there an editor or two out there that are considered to be
> 'top-of-the-line'?
>
> If you have done your own comparative analysis of the various
> available editors, I would be interested what your criteria was and why
> you selected the editor you did.
>
> thank you.

Joseph Kesselman <keshlam-> writes:

> For whatever it's worth, I mostly just use an old release of Emacs
> in its SGML mode. (I suspect newer versions have a real XML mode,
> which would probably be a better choice.) It's simple, it works, it
> supports unicode, it's just helpful enough and it stays out of my
> way.

Emacs users should definitely take a look at nxml-mode. Not only does
it give you all the power of Emacs, but it validates as you type.
It's very cool.

Here's a blurb from the website:

nXML mode allows a schema to be associated with the XML document being
edited. The schema is used to provide two key features:

* Continuous validation. nXML validates as you type, highlighting
any invalid parts of your document.

* Completion. nXML can assist you in entering an element name,
attribute name or data value by using information about what is
allowed by the schema in that context.

http://www.thaiopensource.com/nxml-mode/

> XML's simple enough that I rarely feel the need for much editing
> assistance.

nxml-mode would help. Trust me.

Jason

Chris Chiasson wrote:
> there is also altova xml spy and xmetal

These are windows only (although they probably run via VirtualPC or
something)...can't be considered.

> and emacs nxml mode

Thanks for this one

Microsoft's Visual Studio 2005 XML Editor is one of the most powerful I have
seen -- just check it out.

Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev



"Eric" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>I was looking around for XML editors and searching through this group,
> I found:
>
> http://www.oxygenxml.com/
> http://www.xmlmind.com/
> http://www.editix.com/
> http://www.exchangerxml.com/
>
> The primary requirement is that the editor runs under both Windows XP
> and MacOSX.
>
> I was wondering if anyone would care to give their recommendation(s) or
> opinion(s) on what editors to avoid (because they crash often, simply
> don't work well, etc.).
>
> Is there an editor or two out there that are considered to be
> 'top-of-the-line'?
>
> If you have done your own comparative analysis of the various
> available editors, I would be interested what your criteria was and why
> you selected the editor you did.
>
> thank you.
>

Thanks for the suggestion, but if it does not run under both MacOSX and
Windows, it cannot be considered.

Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
> Microsoft's Visual Studio 2005 XML Editor is one of the most powerful I have
> seen -- just check it out.
>
> "Eric" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
> >I was looking around for XML editors and searching through this group,
> > I found:
> >
> > http://www.oxygenxml.com/
> > http://www.xmlmind.com/
> > http://www.editix.com/
> > http://www.exchangerxml.com/
> >
> > The primary requirement is that the editor runs under both Windows XP
> > and MacOSX.
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone would care to give their recommendation(s) or
> > opinion(s) on what editors to avoid (because they crash often, simply
> > don't work well, etc.).
> >
> > Is there an editor or two out there that are considered to be
> > 'top-of-the-line'?
> >
> > If you have done your own comparative analysis of the various
> > available editors, I would be interested what your criteria was and why
> > you selected the editor you did.
> >
> > thank you.
> >

>
> http://www.oxygenxml.com/
> http://www.xmlmind.com/
> http://www.editix.com/
> http://www.exchangerxml.com/
>
> The primary requirement is that the editor runs under both Windows XP
> and MacOSX.
>

I can recommend oXygen, I've been using it for ~2 yrs and, like you,
have the primary requirement that it be multi-platform. (In my case, osx
and linux). I have had problems with memory when debugging the xslt
transform of >3Mb of xml, though.

I also needed a good xml debugger and wanted an integrated svg viewer;
it does both.

I dont have a comparison with the other packages you mention, but it
does beat emacs hands down.

cheers
shaun