Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: W. E. Perry [mailto:email@example.com]
>Let's distinguish the slugfest, or at least the grounds for it, from the
>'direct access' question. The grounds for slugfest are that threads on
>XML-DEV should not be redirected to other forums, least of all ones
>where the very premises of the thread are out of order.
>As for 'direct access', it means (as it always has since I started reading code in
>1966): conforming exactly to brittle expectations from a priori
>agreements, so that I don't have to parse it, lex it, analyze it,
>compare it to its history, or otherwise do in computerized processing
>what the human brain has to do in handling every bit of new input it
>ever encounters. Have any of the defenders of direct access here (are
>there any?) said anything to contradict that characterization?
I'll await their replies. Mine was to say that objectification, the
somewhat irresistable urge to turn markup into object-oriented objects,
has been tried, been found wanting, don't go there. If that
is what Bosworth is about to suggest, then we already know the why not.
If he has ideas or examples of a programming idiom that makes it easier
to do this work without sacrificing data portability, I'm open to that.
If not, then nyet. XML does make some aspects of programming harder.
We knew that already and so does he. As Bray says, he is a smart guy.