Lists Home |
Date Index |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul T" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Jens Jakob Andersen, PDI" <email@example.com>;
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML=WAP? And DOA?
> > Seemed that as long as it was poserpoints, it worked out fine.
> > But the moment they started to implement solutions,
> > suddenly everybody had to code and code and code,
> > since suddenly XML shows all that it is lacking.
> People think that because XML is easy to
> write - it should be easy to process. It takes
> some guts to understand ( and tell ) the truth:
> XML is just simply hard to process. It is
> harder to process, than CSV, because,
> for example, there are no convinient
> XML bindings for general-purpose languages
> out there.
> SAX is just a lexer and DOM is too low-level.
> Not talking about the storage, but about
> 'processing only'. Smart people ( and those, who
> avoid low-level SAX / DOM *are* smart ) usually
> start abusing XSLT ( kinda "the only scripting language
> that provides a nice 'binding' to XML" and 'hey -
> it is blessed by W3C as a standard!' ).
This has been one of the few problems I've had fellow developers complain
about when they mention working on XML applications. Paul is exactly right
that SAX and DOM are too low level (although addition of XPath integration in
DOM as exists in the MSFT's .NET APIs and Oracle's XDK is a big help) and as
for XSLT, the following article by Tom Moertl is a succint summary of the
issues with XSLT that I've heard developers voice and that I've had myself
So what I'd like to know is whether anyone is working on APIs or applications
for processing XML that are friendlier towards developers than the current
crop of standards from the W3C?
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #1
My Legions of Terror will have helmets with clear plexiglass visors, not
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com