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

RE: Blaming the programmers (was Re: malfunctioning, evil adul

• To: 'Seairth Jacobs' <seairth@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Blaming the programmers (was Re: malfunctioning, evil adult as XML)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:49:02 -0600

Of course.   I agree with that.

Markup is and always has been a 
compromise to bridge the gap between 
what a human can do with text and context, and what 
a computer can't do or does badly given it's 
literalness an inability to work with natural 
language.   Once XML became the one-size-fits-all 
solution, the pressure to make the bridge into 
a hydrofoil increased.

If you dig around, I think you will find email 
that warns about that from way back.  It didn't 
slow anyone down apparently. The programmers 
were expected to argue about it; remember, they 
hate SGML.  It makes them work hard to make the 
end users's job easier.  Heard it all before.  

But XML isn't an unlimited license to redo the entire markup 
world in their image.  Then Dr. Goldfarb's worry 
that message oriented markup will destroy 
document oriented markup becomes reality.  

XML is a compromise.  Otherwise, use LISP or ASN.1. 
They are designed for what the programmer needs.

len


From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:seairth@s...]

Here's an odd notion:  use XML for what it's good for and nothing more.  But
if the industry is going to insist on using it for *everything*, then expect
to hear "programmers" to argue what's wrong with it.

• Prev by Date: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Next by Date: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Previous by thread: RE: combining malfunctioning, evil adult as XML with Elliot Rusty Harald
• Next by thread: Questions on Initializing Parameters for XSL
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread