[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Erik Wilde writes:
> sure we can treat everything as pure xml and have everybody
> implement their own namespace handling and link handling and whatever,
> but this is not in the interest of people wo would like to have better
> support for commonly used mechanisms.
Or we could have designed these things with markup in mind, rather than
believing in abstract semantic models and retrofitting them to markup.
Geez. I guess we've come a long way from:
--------------------
"I think most XML processors are going to be purpose-built for the
needs of particular applications, and will thus hide inside them.
Which is good; XML's simplicity makes this approach cost-effective.
Failing that, parsers will be full-dress validating parsers with
incremental parsing for authoring support. So I'm not sure that
there's all that much need for a standalone processor, but I'd love
to be wrong." [1]
-------------------
Although I've long trumpeted XML for the widely available tools, I'm
starting to wonder if maybe XML might have been better off with a
simpler foundation and more of a write-your-own ethic.
[1] - Bray, Tim. "An Introduction to XML Processing with Lark",
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/w3j/s3.bray.html
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
