tgies <tg...@tgies.net> writes:
> Okay, so you're going to use XML for every imaginable thing which you
> can possibly contrive a way to use XML for, including uncompressed RGB
> raster images, large relational databases, and the syntax for new
> procedural imperative programming languages. Fine. Fine. I suppose I
> can't stop you. After all, it is somehow considered new and it is
> somehow considered Web 2.0 and there is an X in the name.
...you were going so well and then, suddenly...
> But, for pity's sake, if you are going to define a new XML schema,
> please do not be a complete retard. XML has these things called
> "attributes" for a reason.
Yes! Attributes. We need those in SGML ^W XML because they have much
more liberal rules than those pesky tags. You don't need to specify
what they contain in any meaningful way in the DTD.
> You do not need to define a separate tag for every possible property
> an element in your XML document may have.
This is very important because it allows us to define an additional
vocabulary for our document that can all sorts of useful things such as:
Multi-value fields split by whatever character seemed like a good idea
at the time. Unstructured data. Random data imported from the
scripting language of the day. Other languages. Binary data, encoded
in some random format.
> There is a reason that it is
> <font color="#FF0000" face="Comic Sans MS">Hello</font>
> and not
> <font>
> <color>#FF0000</color>
> <face>Comic Sans MS</face>
> <text>Hello</text>
> </font>.
Why, yes. Yes, there is. Imposing all the extra structure required for
the second form would, like, burden the DTD author and the poor computer
that has to read the content.
How do we know this is the case and not, say, that the attribute form
has real value?
Why, because there is absolutely no different between the two forms.
The two document examples contain exactly the same information content.
The second, though, requires that you had more structure, the former
doesn't.
> Oh my God.
Something like that.
It would be really nice if this whole SGML thing was less crazy but,
hey, I gave up that particular dream quite a while back...
Daniel
--
X Windows is the Iran-Contra of graphical user interfaces: a tragedy of
political compromises, entangled alliances, marketing hype, and just plain
greed. X Windows is to memory as Ronald Reagan was to money.
-- The Unix Haters Handbook
