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

RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be bette

• To: "Liam Quin" <liam@w...>,"Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Subject: RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:09:50 -0800
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcL1QmLsIXmS6uKwRKq7Kt9JjexD1wAAZ1mz
• Thread-topic: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard

The "Desperate Perl Hacker" argument  was a bogus claim for XML 1.0 because of the existence of entities and CDATA sections but is quite farcical now with the existence of the Namespaces in XML recommendation (and it's bastard spawn "QNames in content"). 

________________________________

From: Liam Quin [mailto:liam@w...]
Sent: Fri 3/28/2003 7:54 AM
To: Uche Ogbuji
Cc: xml-dev@l...
Subject: Re:  If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard




None the less, it's worth noting that one of the use cases for XML from
the beginning was the "desparate perl hacker" who had to change, say,
part number 1976 to 3072 in 100,000 documents without affecting dates,
and had an afternoon to do it.  That specific use case was achieved in
practice for most people.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd bebetter off as a crossing guard
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML into SQL and out again
• Next by Date: Re: Re: If XML is too hard for a programmer,perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard
• Previous by thread: GXA specifications process
• Next by thread: Re: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd bebetter off as a crossing guard
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread