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

Re: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too ha rd for

• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too ha rd for Aunt Trudie?
• From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:38:45 -0500
• Cc: 'Tom Gaven' <Tom.Gaven@e...>,'xml-dev' <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F67F@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9F67F@h...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Data objects in the X, operations in the Y and users in the Z. 
> Change the values for syntax and look at what is actually being 
> shared.  It isn't the compact syntaxes or the binaries.  They lost. 
> They'll lose again.

Seems a bit premature. What percentage of the world's scientific or 
commercial data are encoded or transmitted in XML syntax? How many new 
programming languages are being designed in XML syntax?

Compact syntaxes like RNC and XQuery have certainly not "lost". Markup 
has been around for a relatively long time, but in a very small circle. 
Probably as many people programmed in Lisp as ever used SGML. Then we 
had the XML fad (which, measured by book sales, is over). If you want to 
slap a ruler on a few years of exuberance and draw a line to the sky, 
ok, but we'll see.

Bob Foster
http://xmlbuddy.com/

• References:
  • RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too ha rd for Aunt Trudie?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Media Types, Purposes, Natures, and XSL Transforms
• Next by Date: Re: SAX 2.0.2--progress stalled?
• Previous by thread: RE: XUL Compact Syntax Study Now Online - Is XML too ha rd for Aunt Trudie?
• Next by thread: Does anyone know of a mailing list for java and xml?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread