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

shared costs (was something about infoset has two daddies)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: shared costs (was something about infoset has two daddies)
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:32:06 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3D624173.40500@d...>

Erik Wilde writes:
> sure we can treat everything as pure xml and have everybody 
> implement their own namespace handling and link handling and whatever, 
> but this is not in the interest of people wo would like to have better 
> support for commonly used mechanisms.

Or we could have designed these things with markup in mind, rather than
believing in abstract semantic models and retrofitting them to markup.

Geez.  I guess we've come a long way from:
--------------------
"I think most XML processors are going to be purpose-built for the
needs of particular applications, and will thus hide inside them.
Which is good; XML's simplicity makes this approach cost-effective.
Failing that, parsers will be full-dress validating parsers with
incremental parsing for authoring support.  So I'm not sure that
there's all that much need for a standalone processor, but I'd love
to be wrong." [1]
-------------------

Although I've long trumpeted XML for the widely available tools, I'm
starting to wonder if maybe XML might have been better off with a
simpler foundation and more of a write-your-own ethic.  

[1] - Bray, Tim.  "An Introduction to XML Processing with Lark",
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/w3j/s3.bray.html


-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: shared costs (was something about infoset has two daddies)
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• References:
  • Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
    • From: Erik Wilde <net.dret@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Next by Date: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Previous by thread: Re: the infoset is two infosets (or even three?) [was:Re: linking, 80/20]
• Next by thread: Re: shared costs (was something about infoset has two daddies)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread