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

RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not co

• To: "'Dare Obasanjo'" <dareo@m...>, "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
• Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 17:29:09 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <000c01c23bfc$4290d2e0$6401a8c0@didierhome>

Hi Dare,

Dare said:
I like the fact that I can use XPP, JDOM and Castor in Java or their
equivalents in the .NET framework without having to deal with APIs that
are inconsistent with the rest of the class libraries, fail to utilize
the programming language idioms and ignore general language specific
design patterns. 
 
Didier replies:
Reading again your message I think I understand what you mean. I agree
that stuff like the DOM is not the best stuff in town. Instead of using
CORBA definitions, a spec could simply state how we define the object
hierarchies and the object types (the one most commonly used in several
typed languages). I think it's a matter of choices and paradigm trap.
Sticking to the syntax we ended up with a syntax based API. Gee! a big
of fresh air and some exercise brings back some common sense. So, W3C is
traped in a certain paradigm and the bloat is the result of this
dominant paradigm. I remember that in the SGML world we where beginning
to understand that groves going beyond the syntaxic level where very
useful, this is a lesson that didn't percolated in W3C workgroups.

Cheers
Didier PH Martin

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective notcode)
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
    • From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>

• Prev by Date: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Next by Date: RE: Please no UOM (was Re: maps)
• Previous by thread: RE: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective not code)
• Next by thread: Re: constructive (was RE: Markup perspective notcode)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread