[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:What ar

• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: Are XML's Good Ideas hidden? (was Re: Re:What are Schemas For?)
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 09:52:22 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• References: <2XXWOKYVGC34POTPDCW3ZKE3WTRA8.3dbaf803@MChamp>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Mike Champion wrote:
> ...
> 
> Is is all over now, or is there some way to get out the word that XML really 
> *is* simple and useful without all the layers and layers of hype, complexity, 
> and drag-n-drop tools that exploit the power of XML for the benefit of 
> vendors while denying its benefits to users?

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).

Nobody sane wants to go back to that world. Some people are proceeding 
in other directions like YAML and LMNL etc. As long as the approaches 
preserve the essential features of XML (standardized syntax, schemas, 
etc.), we'll have made progress in the last ten years.

  Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Are XML's Good Ideas hidden? (was Re: Re: Whatare Schemas For?)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Are XML's Good Ideas hidden? (was Re: Re: What are SchemasFor?)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Do We Need James Clark to get Good Recs?
• Next by Date: Re: What is "semantic markup"?
• Previous by thread: Re: Are XML's Good Ideas hidden? (was Re: Re: Whatare Schemas For?)
• Next by thread: Re: Are XML's Good Ideas hidden? (was Re: Re: Whatare Schemas For?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread