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

Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?

• To: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Subject: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
• Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:50:00 -0500
• Cc: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <4204023D.8000401@o...>
• References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0501280904130.20504-100000@s...> <200502032213.56841.david.lyon@c...> <4202A983.6030803@z...> <4202C65B.7000207@o...> <42038131.8080701@m...> <4204023D.8000401@o...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217

Bob Foster wrote:

> A reasonable pov, probably represents the majority, I just don't agree 
> with it. A barrier to entry is a barrier to entry. The fact that it's 
> hard to write an XML parser means it's hard to understand how to use 
> XML, too. 

This doesn't necessarily follow. There are cases where the difficulty of 
parsing XML is in sync with the difficulty of authoring it (parameter 
entity references come to mind). However, there are also cases where the 
difficulty of parsing XML is a direct result of making it easier to 
author and read. The matching of start-tags to end-tags is such an 
example. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this cause problems for 
certain kinds of grammars and parser generators. Yet it's a crucial part 
of making XML easier to use then SGML was.

The bottom line is I don't find any arguments based on the difficulty of 
parsing XML to be really compelling, given that we have existence proofs 
that correct, efficient parsing of XML is possible.

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@m...
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim

• Follow-Ups:
  • How simple is simple enough? - was Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>

• References:
  • xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by Date: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Previous by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Next by thread: Re: xml 2.0 - so it's on the way after all?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread