Tim Bray wrote:
> Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>> The "Desperate Perl Hacker" argument was a bogus claim for XML 1.0
>> because of the existence of entities and CDATA sections but is quite
>> farcical now with the existence of the Namespaces in XML
>> recommendation (and it's bastard spawn "QNames in content").
>
> Empirically false, at two levels. First, lots of people process XML
> with perl (or equivalent) all the time. Second, the real requirement
> was to make it tractable to take a large body of document data and make
> quick programmatic changes on it.
Indeed, the simple fact that people are doing SAX filtering in the archetypal
Perl one-liners shows that the DPH argument has had its effect. There's work on
making the situation even better, and the Perl 6 people are discussing very
interesting things relating to XML.
--
Robin Berjon <>
Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
