[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Has XML run its course?

• From: Didier PH Martin <martind@n...>
• To: Pete Kirkham <pete@c...>
• Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:54:05 -0400

Hi Peter

[Peter said]
What did you see XML as?

I was under the impression XML is a syntactic system for creating
application specific languages.

Certain of the application languages, such as XSL, XSchema, DocBook, are
understood to be general accepted standards.  Others are generated for
single use cases.

That people use such a language for what it is intended doesn't cause
that language to cease to be, anymore than saying that 'there is no more
UML per se' because people are creating application specific class
models with it.

[didier replies]
:-) I understand your answer. Let me explain my point.

a) Off course XML is a meta language used to create languages. This is
precisely the point. What you use is mostly the language created and based
on XML rules. XML per se, is nothing except a set of rules. The real stuff
is the language produced by following these rules. The whole PR universe was
about XML, but the real stuff is about cXML, CBL, HRXML, XSLT, SVG, XHTML,
SMIL, VoiceXML etc... After you defined the rules to assemble a bunch of
angle bracket elements (the syntax) you need to know what these elements
mean (the semantics).

b) since XML is mostly a set of rules that a particular domain language has
to conform with, it is hard to sell as is. We do not buy car design rules,
we buy cars.

c) in the public opinion, XML has been wrongly mixed with something tangible
not as a set of design rules. people new to XML think its a language,
something that will resolve their problems. They do not perceive XML as a
set of design rules or as a syntax guideline.

d) XML is a toolset for language designers. Now that several languages have
been designed on it, we no longer talk about the design rules but more about
the rules' byproduct.

e) we subtly moved from the syntax to the semantics. This is what we do with
XML that is now important.

I hope my comment is clearer now, but be reassured I didn't said that
because I do not know XML :-)

Didier PH Martin

• References:
  • Re: Has XML run its course?
    • From: Pete Kirkham <pete@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Has XML run its course?
• Next by Date: RE: Has XML run its course?
• Previous by thread: Re: Has XML run its course?
• Next by thread: Re: Has XML run its course?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread