[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why XML?
Rick Jelliffe writes: > Its clearly a completely bogus principle! In fact, for markup > languages the reverse is true: having more forms makes data capture > and modeling easier because you can choose the form that requires > the least work. E.g. (<![CDATA[ ]]> or & ) and (element or > attribute) and (<x></x> or <x/>) and ( y="z" or y='z'). Flexibility is a benefit for users but a cost for implementors; simplicity is a benefit for implementors but a cost for users. Sadly, there's no magic formula that works every time for programming languages or markup languages. > The other bogus principle is that there should only be one syntax > for everything. Looking at the triumph of the C family over the > LISP family, it is more likely that people prefer a variety of > embedded syntaxes which serve to indicate semantics or role > graphically. Again, it's a trade-off: you have to consider both internal and external factors. Using a syntax that's 10% wrong but 50% better supported might make sense; using a syntax that's 50% wrong but only 10% better supported might not. The interesting part is that once something gains a bit of momentum, support tends to snowball because of economies of scale, so that it makes sense to use it places where it really is suboptimal in and of itself. Think of the people who have switched their development work from FORTRAN to C/C++ or Java. All the best, David -- David Megginson, david@m..., http://www.megginson.com/
|
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
|