Re: James Clark: XML versus the Web
When the elders sat down to think about SGML for the web in 1996 whatever, they were staring at a man-mountain, and were looking for an athlete. Compare XML with SGML and it is an efficient subset. Since then, the athlete XML has been asked to do so many jobs that it has had to develop add-ons that weren't needed in 1997 and are making it resemble SGML again in today's world of the web. What we have today is a technology that can do most of what we ask, but is completing the circle and becoming over-sized due to all the add-ons, sticking plasters etc., just as was SGML when viewed through the eyes of the web. So why can't we just take the existing ideas and mould them into another athlete fit for today's tasks? We can, but need the motivation to do it. That motivation is referred to in James post. HTML5 and JSON don't need XML. It's industry and corner cases that need the extra muscle that XML picked up from SGML. For 80% of its usage it simply presents baggage which isn't needed. S-XML (speedy/slim/standard) could build on James ideas, incorporate the useful aspects of JSON (see Ricks post) and be reborn as a 2010 athlete, again fit for purpose. As did XML in 1997, leave XML and its family in the corner for those who need its bulk, and see if we can create SXML as the younger sibling, fit and well for today's tasks. -- regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
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