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

Re: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)

• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• From: =?UTF-8?B?QmlsbCBkZSBow5NyYQ==?= <bill@d...>
• Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 00:49:45 +0000
• Cc: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B7C88A@R...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> When I think of marked up documents, I think of human readable content marked up with machine readable metadata while when I think of config files and other data interchange scenarios I think of machine readable content marked up with human readable metadata. These are two very different design scenarios. In the latter case very few features of XML are needed and when you whittle them down (check out the recent WWW-TAG discussions) you're left with something that looks like angle-bracketed CSV or sharp edged S-expressions. 

That's nicely Wildean. Yet config files are human readable content 
(or their utility is reduced), both for markup and content, just as 
much as source code or Shakespeare. And we've surely done the 
sexpr|csv|xml thing to death here and elsewhere.

Through what you're saying could work for tags along the lines of 
<base64>. Or <Joyce>.

Bill de hÃ?ra

• References:
  • RE: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Usefulness of well-formedness was RE: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• Next by Date: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Previous by thread: RE: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• Next by thread: Re: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread