|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Re: Syntax + object model
From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...> > Maybe they're just trolls, maybe they > genuinely believe that syntax isn't interesting, but damn they're > annoying. Its not the people who believe that syntax is uninteresting who hinder XML. It is the people who think syntax is unimportant, for example see any spec which makes its own BNF for "XML". Actually, I would include element/attribute syntax (validity) as well as delimiter syntax (WF) in those comments. I think this all relates to the software engineering principle that the code writers should not be its testers: because the things they missed in their code will also be the things they overlook in their tests. For specifications (in house or from standards bodies) such as data interchange or markup specifications, if you adopt the disipline of following someone else's standard syntax (e.g. XML, Schematron, WSDL, etc) it blocks off one class of problems, compared to using home-made syntaxes. (Of course, it opens the opposite problem, that the standard syntax may not express what you want, but that is just another tradeoff.) XML may easily (if it has not already) paved the way for a pretty standard data model for exchange (AVT with IDs with optional datatyping) and that model may indeed turn out to have a better natural serialization syntax (if it has not already with ASN.1). I hope people attempt such things. But that will not impact XML's usefullness as something distinct (or logically prior to) a data model (future FUD notwithstanding.) Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








