|
From: | Tupshin Harper |
Subject: | Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: documentation as info |
Date: | Tue, 16 Sep 2003 20:21:49 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030827 |
Tom Lord wrote:
Whether it's the right or wrong slice depends completely on how you define the multi-dimensional design space.miles: > My problem with xml/sgml is as a human-edited source > language, i.e., what the tla docs are. They're also just the _wrong_ slice across a complex, multi-dimensional design space, but that's _much_ harder to explain. So, yes, I hope your kind of front-line arguments prevail but, behind those.....
I (at least partly) agree. DOM certainly isn't it. It's just an API to the structural and content information already present in the XML. XML Schema (XSD) does go part of the way to addessing this by defining a handful of string, numeric, data/time, and some other miscellaneous types, as well as more complex types that generally refer to some combination of elements, attributes, etc.Give me some abstract data type standards to start with (and, no, I don't mean DOM -- more like a set of lisp types).
http://www.w3schools.com/schema/
Why have the complexity of a full programming language when the task is simply to define a specific data representation? Unnecessary complexity.And give me a freakin' language, not DTDs and Schema (geeze, only one letter off). We can build out the read/write variations from there.
But XMLers won't get that at all. They aren't even in the same city as the ballpark. And their audience? Pheh.
Two questions:* What tasks would you find easier or more palatable if XML had more lisp-like abstract data types and a scheme-like validation language?
* Any opinion about SXML? -Tupshin
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |