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

RE: XML should NOT be a new programming language

• To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>, Niels Peter Strandberg <nielspeter@n...>
• Subject: RE: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:45:01 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

I'm with Niels.  

This has been tried several times in several places with 
the usual reply being "so what is so special about a 
pointy bracket".  ("Don't Shock The Monkey"). It can 
be done but why do it?

There are several good object-oriented programming 
languages that support lean parsing.  Why put a 
fat parsing language into the mix with all of the 
overhead of dozens of ancillary specifications? 
It seems like a good way to confuse people and 
systems.

XML:  the pine tree of syntax-unified systems.

len


From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]

On Sat, 2002-03-02 at 10:22, Niels Peter Strandberg wrote:
> I want XML in Java! 

While poking around on some other projects this morning, I found:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4/docs/api/java/beans/XMLEncoder.html

It seems to be running the opposite direction from what Niels wants, but
it's interesting in its own way.  I'm not used to seeing "void" in
markup.

-------------------------------
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<java version="1.0" class="java.beans.XMLDecoder">
<object class="javax.swing.JFrame">
<void property="name">
<string>frame1</string>
</void>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: XML should NOT be a new programming language
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: canonicalization
• Next by Date: RE: Assumptions about URIs
• Previous by thread: RE: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Next by thread: Re: RE: XML should NOT be a new programming language
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread