Re: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd bebetter
Tim Bray wrote: > Dare Obasanjo wrote: > >> The "Desperate Perl Hacker" argument was a bogus claim for XML 1.0 >> because of the existence of entities and CDATA sections but is quite >> farcical now with the existence of the Namespaces in XML >> recommendation (and it's bastard spawn "QNames in content"). > > > Empirically false, at two levels. First, lots of people process XML > with perl (or equivalent) all the time. Second, the real requirement > was to make it tractable to take a large body of document data and make > quick programmatic changes on it. Which, obviously, XML makes way easier. The requirement as we understood it years ago was that the person would be working with regular expressions and _no XML parser_. (otherwise syntactic choices like minimization would have been irrelevant) Dare is right that XML-as-specified was never simple enough that you could reliably process XML with Perl 5 regular expressions. On the other hand, the XML one tends to receive, tends to be simple enough that it works most of the time. You don't want to build a system around it but for one-offs on data sitting on a hard drive, it usually works. CDATA sections and entities are easy to "grep' for. Paul Prescod
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