[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bill de hÓra wrote:
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> Ok. Any parties interested in posting their favorite five bad
>> problems with XML in order here? I wonder what the consensus is on
>> the top two.
>
> 1) Default namespaces
> 2) DOM
> 3) No Clark notation in XPath (or XML) -see 1 for details.
Namespaces in XPath is a large contributor to why people dislike
namespaces yes. To be honest I wouldn't want to replace my XPath QNames
with Clarkian notation, they'd become a touch hard to read. What I would
love to see on the other hand would be more usage of the xmlns()
XPointer scheme everywhere XPath is available. It would be oh so simple.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xmlns/
> Prediction: whatever replaces XML will look something like RNC or YAML -
> it won't be binary.
Heartily agreed, though it may include a binary syntax (that would be
one permathread fewer :). At the same time, I sure hope it looks nothing
like RNC or YAML, they're not exactly the best syntaxes for text-heavy
documents.
--
Robin Berjon
|
