[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: "Liam Quin" <liam@w3.org>,"Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:09:50 -0800
- Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Thread-index: AcL1QmLsIXmS6uKwRKq7Kt9JjexD1wAAZ1mz
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard
The "Desperate Perl Hacker" argument was a bogus claim for XML 1.0 because of the existence of entities and CDATA sections but is quite farcical now with the existence of the Namespaces in XML recommendation (and it's bastard spawn "QNames in content").
________________________________
From: Liam Quin [mailto:liam@w3.org]
Sent: Fri 3/28/2003 7:54 AM
To: Uche Ogbuji
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard
None the less, it's worth noting that one of the use cases for XML from
the beginning was the "desparate perl hacker" who had to change, say,
part number 1976 to 3072 in 100,000 documents without affecting dates,
and had an afternoon to do it. That specific use case was achieved in
practice for most people.
|
