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 doesn't deserve its "X".

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Klaus Backert wrote:
> Hi,
> may be, I got it wrong all the time, but I thought that XML is a
> (meta-)language by means of which I construct markup languages - and this is
> the extensibility. I use XML like this for 3 years now because it matches my
> needs - and I will go on. IMHO, the extensibility of XML is a builtin fact.

If by extensibility you mean the ability to create your own language, yes.

If you also mean the ability to include new information in an existing 
vocabulary, I think that XML has failed so far.

And the ability to extend (and evolve) the XML specification itself is 
still to be seen...

>>Von: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@dyomedea.com>
>>Datum: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 08:53:44 +0100
>>An: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>>Betreff: [xml-dev] XML doesn't deserve its "X".
>>Title says it all, the extensibility of XML is one of its myths...
>>Technically, XML is based on trees which are not the most extensible
>>structures (compared to tables or triples). If you extend a tree you are
>>likely to break its structure (and existing applications). I would say
> I use a perl DOM API which preserves wellformedness when manipulating the
> DOM-tree. For me it's easy to modify the tree structure, and it's not likely
> to break it.

No, but if you change the structure even slightly, how many of your 
applications will be affected?

Sorry I haven't been clear!



> Curious about what others say.
> Greetings
> Klaus
See you in Seattle.
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org      http://4xt.org           http://examplotron.org


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

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