Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 11:23, Mike Champion wrote: > There *does* seem to be a trend toward defining alternate non-XML syntaxes > for such things; for example, the XQuery people seem to have decided that > their initial requirement for an XML version of the query syntax doesn't > meet a strong real-world need, and the RELAX-NG people have defined an > alternate typist-friendly syntax that directly maps onto the normative > XML syntax. I love to see that kind of stuff - RELAX NG seems to be an especially friendly approach. That's pretty different from using Java (or C#, or VB, or whatever) to directly do the work. I don't mind using Java to write my processors, but I don't want to limit the processes I'm defining to Java. > I'm sure this is controversial, but a case could be made that > "XML" is more than the angle bracket syntax; the InfoSet and the DOM > can be thought of as "XML" and they operate on the output of a parser > and don't care about the syntax that the parser understands. That was really controversial a few years ago, but I'm not sure most people worry about the distinction so much any more. I've been discussing XML syntax as a canonical form of markup, one of many lexical conventions for describing information - and the one with the most tools available for processing. I'd love to see more parsers for non-XML formats that can interoperate (via SAX, DOM, Infoset, whatever) with XML, and I think they're coming. In a lot of ways that kind of processing looks more interesting than XML work itself. (I'm hoping the groves folks will enjoy it, though I think it's worked out a little differently than they've hoped.) -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com
|
