Re: [xml-dev] Transformative Programming: Flow-based, functional, and more
Hi Uche,
Simon's been pretty clear that data interchange via XML is all well and good and that rigid standards can be a problem. However, that does get to the essence of my question, where does the line between these two divergent views get drawn? In particular, XSLT and XProc are useful precisely because of the standardization and structure of their particular XML formats (imperative or not)... Their very utility comes with the cost that Simon often seems to disapprove of.
Peter Hunsberger
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Uche Ogbuji <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Peter Hunsberger <[email protected]> wrote:--Nice write up Simon. This seems more accepting of structured XML data management approaches than I've come to expect from you recently. Something going on or is this just an anomaly?I think you might have misread Simon in his posts challenging the XML community. He has never that I've seen put down XML's basic usefulness for semi-structured, open data expression. Your characterization as "structured XML data management approaches," however, is another kettle of fish, and not a way of putting it that I think communicates XML's strengths.Simon's main complaint has been with the culture of rigid schematics, and with the bleed-in of the imperative programmer's mindset into XML (notice that he gives a positive mention of XSLT and XProc, which at least in their initial forms stayed away from imperative style). It seems to me that this article continues his points consistently.Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net
Founding Partner, Zepheira http://zepheira.comAuthor, Ndewo, Colorado http://uche.ogbuji.net/ndewo/
Founding editor, Kin Poetry Journal http://wearekin.org
Editor & Contributor, TNB http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
http://copia.ogbuji.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji http://twitter.com/uogbuji