Re: [xml-dev] JavaScript (was Re: [xml-dev] Cross-domain loadingof XML)

[Peter Flynn <peter@silmaril.ie>]

On 09/12/10 04:15, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> On 12/8/10 8:06 PM, Kurt Cagle wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> There's a reason JavaScript web developers are often called script
>> kiddies ... formalisms are often wasted on them. There's a great deal of
>> nudge,nudge, wink, wink in the AJAX world.
> 
> That's also changing pretty rapidly.
> 
> I'd be _very_ cautious about looking down on JavaScript developers, and
> not only because I am one.  What's that I heard recently?  "It used to
> be that if you used JavaScript, no one took you seriously.  Now no one
> takes you seriously if you _don't_ use JavaScript."
> 
> One thing XML could really stand to lose is its condescension toward the
> greater Web world.  It was here when I arrived, and doesn't seem to have
> melted away.

I was part of it until we started implementing XML...at one stage I had
even thought the Web might actually use SGML, once plugins like Panorama
had demonstrated that it was feasible :-)

But I agree: some of it derives from SGML-origined baggage, but some is
developer-origined condescension towards end-users (which is why XML
editors for document-centric apps are so uniformly unusable except by
people who already grok markup, for example :-)

XML needs forking. Back-end markup-heavy apps need an XML with fats and
calories and BCBs (ie some of the bells and whistles we left out of SGML
putting back in; or at least their functionality, if not their syntax).
Front-end webapps need a lighter-weight syntax with 1% fat and no added
sugar or salt.

And XML-as-we-know-it may just need to be laid to rest, with thanks for
all the fish.

///Peter