• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 22:22:23 -0400
• In-reply-to: <003901c23af9$4fdbfc80$6401a8c0@didierhome>
• References: <4.2.0.58.20020803085219.014c7fc8@p...>

At 10:23 AM 8/3/2002 -0400, Didier PH Martin wrote:
>  For the moment, we fulfilled the lowest levels at the syntaxic level but 
> still do not provide useful tools for 80% of the problems resolved by 
> developers. When developers are using a Perl, C++ or visual basic program 
> they DO NOT HAVE TO WRITE NOR HAVE TO
>USE A PARSER.

And that's _all_ that XML should solve.  Piling the other 80% of the work 
into XML is precisely what brought us to the unspeakable mess we have 
today, whoever's incredible fault it may be.

The first 20% is usually the easiest, and 20% is often about as much of a 
project as I can make into generic tools I reuse for other projects.  That 
seems perfectly natural to me.  Solving the other 80% generically is not a 
worthwhile project, especially if it makes the first 20% less accessible.


Simon St.Laurent
"Every day in every way I'm getting better and better." - Emile Coue

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• References:
  • constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• Prev by Date: Re: relying on ordering of sibling XML elements
• Next by Date: Re: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Previous by thread: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Next by thread: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread