[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Wikipedia on XML
That you can make the statement that it is true but can be rejected says it is a complex beastie in practice regardless of simplifications in the explanation to make it appear otherwise. Extensibility is the crux of why it isn't simple. If the wikipedia article is to be both correct and understandable, drop the pretense that it is simple in practice. len From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:amyzing@talsever.com] So ... I'd lean in the direction of *rejecting* the argument that XML is a complex beastie that provides tools for defining markup languages. That's certainly true, but it's equally true that there are markup languages that are clearly *XML* without much formal definition. In fact, there are probably quite a lot of "little" languages (for configuration and the like) that are almost entirely undocumented (and which default to "mustignore" semantics, for the most part). You can verify well-formedness without any knowledge of what's in the document, without knowing anything about any particular elements or attributes. You have named elements, named attributes; these have standard syntax. The XML spec doesn't specify what any of them are; it's extensible that way. You have comments and processing instructions; these have standard syntax. Again, there's no definition of what's *in* them; that's an extension point. It's an extensible markup language. Keep it simple.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|