[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Martin Fowler on Schemaless Data Structures
> On 2015 Apr 9, at 14:55, Christopher R. Maden <crism@maden.org> wrote: > > History repeats itself... > > <URL: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-sgml-wg/1996Oct/0472.html > That's a high-class discussion -- thank you for finding that (I always took a great deal of pleasure from the way the SGML world managed to combine practical instincts with sophisticated principle, and a wide range of intellectual reference with a generally excellent prose style). Some gems from that thread are below. Jon Bosak: > The whole idea of XML is that any CS > graduate can construct a parser for it from the BNF grammar set forth > in the specification without knowing anything at all about SGML. (Len Bullard added: "...in a week"). It might be worth reminding ourselves that XML was designed to be The Simple One. David Durand: > Pardon the philosophical note, but how else should one respond to > syntaxt-definition discussions where the mind of God plays a significant > role! I don't think there's any answer to that. Bill Smith: > HTML users may in fact be oblivious to this debate - that is their gain. > However, they won't ignore the issue that HTML is not sufficient for their > needs. Solutions to their problems will be found, and they will look far more > like VisualBasic or JavaScript than any markup language we have devised. This was in 1996. That's what's termed a 'Successful Prediction'. Sperberg-McQueen: > It seems Charles and I agree in our instincts that it is, or could > be. It seems clear from the confused reactions of others that our > instincts are wrong in this case: the idea is simple, but the > obvious way of expressing it conveys something other than that simple > idea to many readers who ought, if possible, to be able to read the > XML spec with comprehension, if not always with the highest pitch of > aesthetic pleasure. That's an argument against using the notion in > the documentation. I recognise that frustration ('why don't people _get_ it?!'). This is an object lesson in withdrawing a suggestion with dignity and style. And I have a fondness for the XML spec, but even I think that 'the highest pitch of aesthetic pleasure' would still be found comfortably on the left hand side of the piano. Goldfarb: > O.K. It is now clear that in XML a document "without a DTD" means literally > that, and not just "parsable without reference to its DTD". I think this is > unfortunate because I believe it will render XML a non-starter in the > marketplace. I think this comes under the heading of an 'unsuccessful prediction'. All the best, Norman -- Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
[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
|