[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 18:40:14 +1100, Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>
wrote:
> Why is there fluff in XML?
>
> In publishing, documents don't only exist over the wire.
[very enlightening analysis/examples !]
>
> It would be strange to say "XML is a format for sending documents, but
> this format does not need to be useful for people writing documents, or
> assembling them, or using them".
This seems to me like a good argument for layering of XML specs, or
pipelining XML processing tools, however you want to think about it. Just
as dear old C had a preprocessing step that allows macros to be defined and
processed to ease the burden of typing, I'd like to see the "fluff" in XML
processed up-front, and "compiled" into canonical syntax or an Infoset.
This would keep the core simple, clean, and interoperable while allowing
humans to author using the fluff or machines to author it directly.
|
