RE: [xml-dev] XML For The Average Monkey

["Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

"Erik Naggum's rant too ("when the distance between 99% of the 'tags' is
/zero/..."), but I probably shouldn't."

As insightful an observation as most have ever made about markup: cost of
control over signal marked.  Letting entropy (as cost of unique identity,
ie, addressable) eat the broadcast budget when the real bang for the buck is
the integration costs.  If you play by its rules and don't over think them,
these systems are excellent when a team has to compose an integrated piece
for some n of that.

For fast, not XML.  For reliable across very large integrated hypertexts,
very capable is XML.  :)

"".  If it's just a matter of parsing tags, XML could very well have been
the wrong choice of format."

Yep.  XML is about getting data into and out of systems that may not like
each other's school teams.  Parser Geeks often overlook meatspace.

ien

-----Original Message-----
From: Arjun Ray [mailto:arjun.ray@verizon.net] 
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:20 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML For The Average Monkey

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 21:39:00 -0500, "Len Bullard"
<cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote:

| The years and archives are littered with the theory of parsing, 
| direct and indirect addressing and the scree of what and how are 
| semantic and identity best related.

Back on xml-dev after more than a decade, I see that nothing has
changed.:-)

| We speculate the deep mysteries but day to day work is learning 
| and scripting in a framework. [...] The utility of XML is standing 
| up project publishing systems that deliver complex data in final
| fixed formats.

That's where the biggest bang for the buck is, agreed.  By contrast,
where diminishing returms set in fast and steeply is the "data format"
type of application, where XML is just a very verbose way to encase
name-value pairs, with maybe a modicum of "nesting".  A classic rant:

	http://blog.codinghorror.com/xml-the-angle-bracket-tax/		 

Note "astounding amount of noise".  I'm tempted to cite Erik Naggum's
rant too ("when the distance between 99% of the 'tags' is /zero/..."),
but I probably shouldn't.

| I don't mean to belittle the joys of character catching, but the 
| beauty of XML is just how easy it is to build complex linked documents. 

Which ultimately involves somewhat more than "parsing tags".  If it's
just a matter of parsing tags, XML could very well have been the wrong
choice of format.