Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Klaus Backert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> may be, I got it wrong all the time, but I thought that XML is a
> (meta-)language by means of which I construct markup languages - and this is
> the extensibility. I use XML like this for 3 years now because it matches my
> needs - and I will go on. IMHO, the extensibility of XML is a builtin fact.
If by extensibility you mean the ability to create your own language, yes.
If you also mean the ability to include new information in an existing
vocabulary, I think that XML has failed so far.
And the ability to extend (and evolve) the XML specification itself is
still to be seen...
>>Von: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
>>Datum: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 08:53:44 +0100
>>An: xml-dev@l...
>>Betreff: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
>>
>>
>>Title says it all, the extensibility of XML is one of its myths...
>>
>>Technically, XML is based on trees which are not the most extensible
>>structures (compared to tables or triples). If you extend a tree you are
>>likely to break its structure (and existing applications). I would say
>>
>
> I use a perl DOM API which preserves wellformedness when manipulating the
> DOM-tree. For me it's easy to modify the tree structure, and it's not likely
> to break it.
No, but if you change the structure even slightly, how many of your
applications will be affected?
Sorry I haven't been clear!
Thanks
Eric
> Curious about what others say.
>
> Greetings
> Klaus
>
--
See you in Seattle.
http://knowledgetechnologies.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
