Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Michael Champion" <email@example.com>
- To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 20:04:36 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 1999 6:23 PM
Subject: RE: Use cases for XML failure (was Re: #2 Re: [SML] Whether to
support Attribute or not?)
> > My experience with the DOM WG *and* my recent day jobs is
> > similar -- the least useful parts of XML cause the most work for people
> > supporting it. Both CDATA sections and external parsed entities caused
> > *massive* amounts of work and contention for us in devising the DOM API.
> Sure, so what? I was part of those battles, and I don't see the relevance.
There are two basic rationales for "SML" that we've discussed here:
1 - XML is bloated with features that make compliant parsers too bulky
and/or slow for handheld devices. I'll admit that I'm less enamored of this
argument than when we started a couple of weeks ago, for roughly the reasons
that Gavin has mentioned in other posts.
2- XML is bloated with kludgy stuff that serves no real purpose except for
traditional SGML-like text processing applications, making it unnecessarily
hard to learn and implement, and ultimately fragile to build upon. I must
say that I'm becoming more enamored of this argument as we go along.
The relevance of my DOM ranting was to point 2 -- XML-related specs and
tools are unnecessarily complicated and delayed by the need to support the
least generally useful bits of the core spec
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)