[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew.Bennett@facs.gov.au
> [mailto:Matthew.Bennett@facs.gov.au]
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 5:28 PM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>
>
> I appreciate XML's strengths re: markup, but I don't think it
> has much of a role in data exchange. Why would anyone use
> something as arcane as XML when flat files have worked
> perfectly well since .... whenever. Between 'trusted' parties, anyway.
>
> Two things make me wonder about the competence of those who
> designed XML.
This sounds like a troll, but I'm bored waiting for traffic to ease up
before I leave so I'll bite.
> 1. If you wanted to keep it comprehensible, why invent
> nonsense like attributes? What can they do that nested
> elements can't?
I had this discussion with one of our devs yesterday. When attributes
first came around they existed as a mechanism for embedding
metadata about markup that was not directly related to the actual
content. Storing such metadata as nested elements mixed up metadata and
the actual data. However in this day and age where one can partition
elements into namespaces this is not as big a concern as it used to be
and attributes are a legacy concept.
> 2. If a start tag must have a matching end tag,
> what purpose is served by that ridiculous slash in an end-tag?
*cough* AMBIGUITY *cough*
Consider
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><b><blockquote><blockquo
te><b><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>
which could be
<blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><b></blockquote><blockq
uote><b></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
or
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><b><blockquote></blockqu
ote><b></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>
Ridiculous indeed. ;)
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Any simple theory will be worded in the most complicated way.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
|
