[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Why XML?
"Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...> wrote: | From: "David Megginson" <david@m...> [on orthogonality of features in language design] |> It's clearly a principle rarely put into practice ( | | 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. True. | E.g. (<![CDATA[ ]]> or & ) I've always wondered about this choice among baroque syntaxes. Too bad MSSCHAR wasn't suitably redefined for XML. | and (element or attribute) A permathread. | and (<x></x> or <x/>) I think losing EMPTY declared content in syntax was a mistake. | and ( y="z" or y='z'). Here I'm almost positive XML goofed. This could have been exploited profitably to distinguish CDATA from tokenizable attribute values. (It's a loss only for playing PE games with strings in the DTD.) | The other bogus principle is that there should only be one syntax for | everything. Like pointy brackets? ;-)
|
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
|