[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 07:46, Rick Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 14:57, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> > For the most part, though, I continue to hear "XML is an okay syntax,
> > but still we must all agree on semantics precisely for anything to
> > work", the same dispiriting story that's kept complexity as a barrier to
> > sophisticated computing.
.../...
> the simpler, more primitive parts of xml are excellent in this scenario.
> the more complex parts start to break down the savings because of
> implementation costs and times.
These more complex parts are mainly those developed by people saying "we
must all agree on semantics" and I think you're both on the same point
here.
I'd argue that strictly speaking XML is only the "simpler, more
primitive part of xml" and encourage people who don't need them to
boycott the more complex parts that can ruin their projects. Even when
they put "XML" in front of their names, these complex parts are only
optional layers that should help you; if they don't, don't buy them.
Eric
--
Lisez-moi sur XMLfr.
http://xmlfr.org/index/person/eric+van+der+vlist/
Upcoming XML schema languages tutorial:
- Santa Clara -half day- (15/03/2004) http://masl.to/?J24916E96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
