Lists Home |
Date Index |
>De : Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Envoye : mardi 15 janvier 2002 16:42
>A : email@example.com
>Objet : Re: SV: SV: [xml-dev] XML=WAP? And DOA?
>>The point is that XML can be as opaque as anything else, and that
>>tags, in and of themselves, say little about overall semantics, and
>>hardly anything about structure beyond encoding an attributed tree.
>No, that misses point completely. The point is not whether XML *can*
>be as opaque as anything else. It whether XML *is* as opaque as
>anything else. In practice, XML *is* far less opaque than CSV and
>similar formats. That's why it's important. And in practice tag names
>do say something significant about the semantics of the document.
>It's not everything, but not everything does not equal nothing.
Maybe what we try to say is that from a programmatical point of view, there
is no added information in a format where the meta-data is embedded into the
data, compared to a format where meta-data is expressed in a header and pure
data follows. The only advantage is for human eyes ; it is great for
debugging. But one should never think that embedding meta-data within data
gives any advantage to XML vs. "header-then-data" formats. Your definition
of "opacity" is anthropomorphical ; from a computer perspective, XML and CSV
are equally crystal clear on the lexical level and completely opaque on the