On 7/7/07, Steven E. Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not the programmatic side of things that's annoying (well, it is,
> but that's because XML parsing libraries are not nice in C, C++, Java,
> and so forth -- and picking a language based on XML support seems
> backwards)
Have you tried processing XML in Java lately? There are several options
that reduce the parsing down to just a few lines of code, especially if
you're interested in using XPath or a data binding tool like JAXB.
> SGML and children ain't for humans.
Wow, that's backwards for SGML, smearing the parent and offspring. Most
of SGML's complexity lies in its affordances for human authors; XML
tossed most of that in the interest of simplifying, with the goals of
both simplifying parsers (hence making them viable in environmens not
possible with SGML) and turning its back on human authors hand-editing
the files.
--
Steven E. Harris
Yep. They just did not go far enough. The entire
stack built on XML could have been far simpler
and at the same time more abstract hence general
had they gone on down the simplification route.
See
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/11/sml/
and for an update
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2006/07/05/json-on-the-web-or-the-revenge-of-sml.html
But the XML simplification war was lost. As far
as I am concerend for places where it fits JSON
is a _lot_ better than XML. YMMV.
BobLQ
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
