• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• From: Klaus Backert <KlausBackert@c...>
• Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 13:11:32 +0100
• In-reply-to: <3C847988.7020608@d...>
• Sender: KlausBackert@c...
• User-agent: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 5.01 (1630)

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.

> 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.

Curious about what others say.

Greetings
Klaus

> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• References:
  • XML doesn't deserve its "X".
    • From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Next by Date: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Previous by thread: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Next by thread: Re: XML doesn't deserve its "X".
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread