Heow,
I think I have already explained why I think both you and Tim
are right but your conclusion is wrong. At the risk of
perpetuating a thread with marginal value, but since every
time I look on the web I find that some else has already said
it better than me, let me just quote Aaron Crane:
htt
I'll have to agree with Tim on this...
1. XML is open
2. XML is standard
3. XML really sucks
Sometimes you realize that particular practices, procedures and entire
social systems are fundementally broken. That said, it dosen't mean you
must follow them, especially if it negatively affects
"Page, Bill" wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:52 PM Tim Daly wrote:
>
> > > > \spadcommand{x:=2}\bound{x}
> > > > \spadcommand{y:=3}\bound{y}
> > > > \spadcommand{x*y}\free{x}\free{y}
> > > >
> > > > clicking on the third expression tells the browser that it needs to
> > > > find a meani
On Tuesday, June 14, 2005 11:52 PM Tim Daly wrote:
> > > \spadcommand{x:=2}\bound{x}
> > > \spadcommand{y:=3}\bound{y}
> > > \spadcommand{x*y}\free{x}\free{y}
> > >
> > > clicking on the third expression tells the browser that it needs to
> > > find a meaning for x and a meaning for y somewhere
On Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:01 AM Tim Daly wrote:
>
> {x:=2}
> {y:=3}
> {x*y}
>
> requires a huge program to parse (DOM or SAX, callbacks) vs
No. This syntax can be easily described as a regular expression
that in principle requires nothing more complex than a simple
finite state machine to
On Tuesday, June 14, 2005 9:54 PM Tim Daly wrote:
> having lost a year of my life working with XML, XSLT, DOM, SAX,
> JDOM, etc. i can honestly say that i'm religiously opposed to XML.
>
> you're welcome to try to convince me otherwise but i warn you that
> it is a hard fight as i have a lot of re
