From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 19:42:15 +0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 01337f14-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 please, this is just an uninformed opinion) but perhaps in the future
I'll be able to see its defects.

--
Hugo


What XML buys you is a bunch of= tools that already work for about half of what you'd want a language t= ool to do. =A0By this I mean there's parsers already written, and lots = of libraries to examine the tags at different levels in a hierarchy or stre= am of XML data. =A0

You still have to define the meaning of each tag, attri= bute and tagged text. =A0For validation of documents in XML there's oth= er XML technologies like Schemas you can use, or you could describe the val= id set of tags in a DTD. =A0

To add to the madness you can write XML files that tran= slate XML files to other files (possibly other XML files) in an XML defined= language called XSLT. =A0XSLT is a bit like writing in a functional progra= mming language with the worst syntax possible :-).

The reason I say "worst syntax possible" is t= hat the amount of typing you'll do to express something simple in XML i= s pretty excessive. =A0

Eventually you'll find= that the entire world became a nail for the XML hammer and that things lik= e SOAP, XML-RPC, are just not very good due to the fact that sending XML do= cuments on a wire for simple RPC calls is grossly inefficient, and there= 9;s a lot better technology out there for these sorts of things.

That said, XML is still here, and you kind of have to l= earn to play ball with it. =A0I just had a discussion with a coworker about= a configuration language for a management project here at work and had to = argue in XML's defense (customers will more easily understand and be ab= le to accept an XML language than whatever new cute DSL we come up with). = =A0

I feel like I need a shower now.

Dave





--0016e64f47c6893b71048a437b42--