OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] XML should NOT be a new programming language

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Simon St.Laurent wrote:

 > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 13:41, Tim Bray wrote:
 >> You're buying some performance.  You're giving up a lot of the things
 >>  that make XML worthwhile, in particular no binary dependencies
 >> on any particular hardware, OS, or whatever. Your call.  But it
 >> feels like a lousy bargain, architecturally, compared to [1].
 >> -Tim
 > If they're just passing the information within a single program or a 
 >  pipeline (think a stack of SAX filters), then [2-3-4] make sense. Once
 >  you cross that boundary (which can be kind of blurry), then you're 
 >  right that [1] offers the most flexibility by far.
That's precisely what we are doing - option [1] for interfacing with 
external components, [2-3-4] for in-process components. I think of it as 
not so much losing a document, more like gaining an infoset. Some of 
these are areas that just wouldn't be viable for fully serialised XML.

Who's claiming a place on the short list of the net's highest-throughput 
XML applications nowadays?



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS