Lists Home |
Date Index |
Of course. I agree with that.
Markup is and always has been a
compromise to bridge the gap between
what a human can do with text and context, and what
a computer can't do or does badly given it's
literalness an inability to work with natural
language. Once XML became the one-size-fits-all
solution, the pressure to make the bridge into
a hydrofoil increased.
If you dig around, I think you will find email
that warns about that from way back. It didn't
slow anyone down apparently. The programmers
were expected to argue about it; remember, they
hate SGML. It makes them work hard to make the
end users's job easier. Heard it all before.
But XML isn't an unlimited license to redo the entire markup
world in their image. Then Dr. Goldfarb's worry
that message oriented markup will destroy
document oriented markup becomes reality.
XML is a compromise. Otherwise, use LISP or ASN.1.
They are designed for what the programmer needs.
From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:email@example.com]
Here's an odd notion: use XML for what it's good for and nothing more. But
if the industry is going to insist on using it for *everything*, then expect
to hear "programmers" to argue what's wrong with it.