Re: Blaming the programmers (was Re: malfunctioning, evil adul
seairth@s... (Seairth Jacobs) writes: >For the rest of the programmers out there (of which I include myself), >the problems with XML existed the moment they started using it. I'll >admit right now that this is a "one man's tea, another man's poison" >perspective issue. But like it or not, non-hypertext programmers are >having XML shoved down their throat as the new way to do just about >everything. You want to connect two accounting systems together over >the net? Use XML! You want to store arbitrary data in a way that can >be easily accessed by generic tools? Use XML! You want to create >layered APIs that seamlessly work together? Use XML! And all this >time, these programmers are asking themselves "why?". Well, because >their boss saw it in Information Week, their tools vendor has >rewritten everything to use it, and the W3C comes out with XML >Datatypes, etc. to bolster the notion that XML is just as good for >non-hypertext uses. Perhaps Erik Naggum is right, then: ----------------------------- But the one thing I would change the most from a markup language suitable for marking up the incidental instruction to a type-setter to the data representation language suitable for the "market" that XML wants, is to go for a binary representation. The reasons for /not/ going binary when SGML competed with ODA have been reversed: When information should survive changes in the software, it was an important decision to make the data format verbose enough that it was easy to implement a processor for it and that processors could liberally accept what other processors conservatively produced, but now that the data formats that employ XML are so easily changed that the software can no longer keep up with it, we need to slam on the breaks and tell the redefiners to curb their enthusiasm, get it right before they share their experiments with the world, and show some respect for their users. One way to do that is to increase the cost of changes to implementations without sacrificing readability and without making the data format more "brittle", by going binary. Our information infrastructure has become so much better that the nature of optimization for survivability has changed qualitatively. The question of what we humans need to read and write no longer has any bearing on what the computers need to work with. One of the most heinous crimes against computing machinery is therefore to force them to parse XML when all they want is the binary data. ----------------------------- I've said repeatedly that I'd be very happy if programmers found a format that worked for them rather than imposing their perspective on markup. Convertibility between the two might be nice, but it's really hard for me to believe at this point the number of cases where XML is an eccentric round peg forced into a dutifully square hole. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format