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

Re: Are XML's Good Ideas hidden? (was Re: Re: Whatar

• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Are XML's Good Ideas hidden? (was Re: Re: Whatare Schemas For?)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 09:29:07 -0500
• In-reply-to: <3DBC19C6.3070006@p...>

10/27/2002 11:52:22 AM, Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote:


>It isn't all over for XML, for the same reason it isn't all over for 
>Unicode (which also has a reputation for being complex). XML makes 
>hierarchical, recursive data serialization and deserialization easier 
>than the popular techniques that preceded it (basically YACC).

No argument from me!  The "is it all over now?" reference was to
whether "XML" (narrowly defined) will become part of the typical
web developer's personal toolbox or whether it would be something
they only touch with APIs, wizards, IDEs, etc.  

Ideally it would be something as powerful (for practical purposes,
don't flame me about automata theory!) as YACC but much more
accessible to the toiling masses. But the tenor of the preceding threads
was that people who aren't XML geeks are thinking of XML (broadly defined)
much like the electric industry thinks of nuclear waste -- a necessary
evil that you don't want to have to touch directly.

• References:
  • Re: Are XML's Good Ideas hidden? (was Re: Re:What are Schemas For?)
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XForms and XDocs (Was: MS office XML)
• Next by Date: RE: ANN: xpath1() scheme for XPointer
• Previous by thread: Re: Are XML's Good Ideas hidden? (was Re: Re:What are Schemas For?)
• Next by thread: Re: Re: What are Schemas For?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread