Re: XML should NOT be a new programming language
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > On Mon, 2002-03-04 at 13:41, Tim Bray wrote: > >>> >> You're buying some performance. You're giving up a lot of the things >> that make XML worthwhile, in particular no binary dependencies >> on any particular hardware, OS, or whatever. Your call. But it >> feels like a lousy bargain, architecturally, compared to . >> -Tim >> > > If they're just passing the information within a single program or a single > pipeline (think a stack of SAX filters), then [2-3-4] make sense. Once > you cross that boundary (which can be kind of blurry), then you're completely > right that  offers the most flexibility by far. > That's precisely what we are doing - option  for interfacing with external components, [2-3-4] for in-process components. I think of it as not so much losing a document, more like gaining an infoset. Some of these are areas that just wouldn't be viable for fully serialised XML. Who's claiming a place on the short list of the net's highest-throughput XML applications nowadays? Francis.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format