[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sat, 2002-05-04 at 03:14, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> The problem of XML is also its main strengh: as a markup language, XML
> is a compromize needed to allow generic tools. Being a compromize means
> that in each "niche" better choices can be found.
>
> For instance, in the "niche" of schema languages, James Clark has shown
> with his compact non XML syntax for RELAX NG that non XML is more
> concise and readable.
>
> For web authoring I tend to completely abandon XHTML for Wiki Markup (no
> more angle brackets and just a small list of escape characters).
I'm heading the same direction. Regular Fragmentations got me started,
and MOE is Markup Object Events, not XML Object Events. The structures
bear a striking resemblance to the XML Infoset and will develop features
to represent more of XML syntax, but XML is only one of several markup
possibilities.
I'm starting to describe markup as a process rather than a toolkit.
> And for publishing I won't be surprised if there was much better
> languages to develop than XML dialects.
>
> The only place where XML is a clear winner is as en exchange format to
> glue all these applications together, but this doesn't mean that each
> application needs to use it, except as a glue to communicate with the
> others.
Yep. I like to think of XML as a convenient canonical form for all
these other flavors of markup.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
