Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Of course. I agree with that. Markup is and always has been a compromise to bridge the gap between what a human can do with text and context, and what a computer can't do or does badly given it's literalness an inability to work with natural language. Once XML became the one-size-fits-all solution, the pressure to make the bridge into a hydrofoil increased. If you dig around, I think you will find email that warns about that from way back. It didn't slow anyone down apparently. The programmers were expected to argue about it; remember, they hate SGML. It makes them work hard to make the end users's job easier. Heard it all before. But XML isn't an unlimited license to redo the entire markup world in their image. Then Dr. Goldfarb's worry that message oriented markup will destroy document oriented markup becomes reality. XML is a compromise. Otherwise, use LISP or ASN.1. They are designed for what the programmer needs. len From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:seairth@s...] Here's an odd notion: use XML for what it's good for and nothing more. But if the industry is going to insist on using it for *everything*, then expect to hear "programmers" to argue what's wrong with it.
|
