Am Son, 2001-10-07 um 18.29 schrieb 1002472199: > > Yes, but not very versatile... > Why? It contains the tips and a minimum amoutn of clutter. If you equate > evrsatile == xml because everybody claims to support it I disagree > completely.
No, but unlike compiled catalog files xml files can be changed in many ways with any tools and even at runtime and remotely. This makes it very versatile. > Yeah, but a) nobody does that (right)? Changing tips at runtime is maybe not the killerapplication, but it could be quite handy for other purposes. > > The problem with SGML is that it's too complex to grok completely and > > that's why a large amount of people simply ignored it; XML is a subset > That's a story I never heard of before. The reson SGML was not used is > because it was very powerful and complex to implement. That's also very true. > For humans it is easy to grok. > You are comparing sgml with xml-applications. I could just > claim that most sgml-applications are much easier to grok for humans than > xml namespaces or schemas. The problem with SGML is that for every purpose there's a different approach, you'll never stay within SGML but always have to learn DSSSL or other ideas to make it useful. With XML it's different - everything you want to do is within XML, you can validate it with XML (schemas) or transform it with XML (XSL) and that makes a huge difference. It would be rougly comparable if you could programm nice programs in C but would have to learn scheme to execute them and python to identify the results in the printed garbage on the console. > this doesn't sound too encouraging, no? yes, it was a goal to keep xml > "human", but this is a minor goal, others (ease-of-use for machines!) were > more important. Yes, but I really like and appreciate the fact that it is very human-readable and that's why I mentioned it. -- Servus, Daniel _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer