RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be bette
Perhaps, but there are an awful lot of us out here glad to have XML for [expletive deleted] text out of MEMO fields. Not using namespaces is an option. Liam is dead on about the uptake of structured data that was previously ignored, and he might have added, the migration away from delimited ASCII. ... sitting here laboriously writing yet another XML Schema in PFE because in a relational shop, it's just documentation and who needs tools for that. Former SGMLers who worked for INGR before the mass exodus will understand. It isn't that it is too hard for a programmer; it is how hard programmers can make it for others because they just won't RTFM. C++ programmers are the enemies of progress. :-) There is probably a paper or article in the topic of how many ways one can make life hard because one knows too much about to-the-metal coding in a time of converging standards. len From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...] 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").
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