Subject: Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variations on the XML syntax From: Paul Prescod <papresco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 21:22:59 -0500 |
Scott Lawton wrote: > > Please don't stop halfway. Complaints about the syntax being verbose are > opportunities for articulating the benefits of XML. If nothing else, > developers are more than welcome to create text-oriented authoring tools > that support any syntax they desire. All we ask is for XML to be the > neutral -- and universal -- interchange format for all sorts of data; not > least, XSL. I've been working with SGML and XML for several years now, and I hear this mantra repeated every so often. Nobody has yet agreed to take it to its limit, however. Should we abandon Java and other programming languages that do not use XML syntax? Should we convert PNG, GIF and JPEG over to XML syntax? How about MPEG? XML is only appropriate for some things. The idea that it should be used for *all things* is quite likely to lead to a backlash from people whose common sense dictates otherwise. XML already goes incredibly far in using XSL for everything. Pushing it into the pattern is a bad idea not only because of the verbosity, but because the verbosity and character set problems will prevent the language from being used in other contexts, such as in queries from attribute values in XML documents, or in query languages meant to be typed on a command line or from a programming language (like SQL). Paul Prescod - http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-000400.html "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." - Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 4 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
2.6 patterns: let's try variations , Scott Lawton | Thread | Re: 2.6 patterns: let's try variati, Scott Lawton |
Re: XSL + Namespace Question, James Clark | Date | Re: New/old pattern syntax, why can, Paul Prescod |
Month |