Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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
|
