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

Re: ConciseXML syntax

• To: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Subject: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:19:06 -0700
• Cc: "Mike Plusch" <mplusch@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: Message from "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...> of "Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:33:45 GMT." <E18ZaN9-0006pv-00@c...>
• Sender: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

> On Friday 17 January 2003 17:06, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > > ConciseXML solves the verbosity and ambiguity of
> > > XML 1.0 while while remaining compatible with
> > > XML 1.0.  ConciseXML is designed for data as
> > > well as documents.
> > >
> > > ConciseXML has four key improvements to XML 1.0:
> >
> > "ConciseXML" is *not* compatible with XML 1.0.  I wish you would drop this
> > inflammatory claim.
> 
> Doesn't that depend on what you mean by compatability? My printer and my 
> computer are very different things, but with the right adapter they're 
> compatible. If conciseXML and XML 1.0 can be cross-converted without 
> information loss then they're way more compatible than my printer and my PC, 
> let alone that ConciseXML seems to be a superset of XML 1.0 :-)
> 
> Now, "compatible" is, in my opinion, a symmetrical relationship; if A is 
> compatible with B then B is compatible with A, right?
> 
> So if ConciseXML was a subset of XML, eg XML-minus-doctype and so on, would 
> you then allow it to be called compatible?
> 
> Because if not, then what *is* compatible with XML?
> 
> Anyway... my point is, I think it's wrong to say that Concise isn't 
> compatible with XML. It might be more valid to accuse it of being a set of 
> non-standard extensions to XML that could cause problems if writers start 
> producing them without knowing beforehand that the readers will be able to 
> read them...

All true.  My objection to their usage depends heavily on custom within the 
XML community.  I thought this would go without saying, but I guess not.  
Without a doubt, their usage is bound to cause confusion, and is not bound to 
win them many friends among others int he XML community.  That is why I wish 
they would drop the inflammatory claim.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
Python Generators + DOM - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/01/08/py-xml.html
4Suite Repository Features - https://www6.software.ibm.com/reg/devworks/dw-x4su
ite5-i/
XML class warfare - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6965
MusicBrainz  metadata - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-thi
nk14.html

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: ConciseXML syntax
• Next by Date: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• Previous by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• Next by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread