Le 08/06/2012 16:02, Brendan Eich a écrit :
David Bruant wrote:
Indeed. Web technologies have not taken the XML turn a lot of people
expected 5-10 years ago.
I'd go further. XML failed. We founded the whatwg in 2004 (Mozilla,
Opera, Apple) because the w3c was chasing a utopian, replace-the-web,
XML dream. We saw that going nowhere; we were right.
From where I stand, I would say that you had no choice because of
market pressure not to break the (existing) web, but I guess that also
counts as "we saw that going nowhere" ;-)
From a web dev perspective, I don't think XML would have been worse or
better. People would have created an ecosystem of tools to work around
the existing technologies. This is what happened with the DOM. This is
what's happening with HTML and all the templating frameworks popping up
recently. This is what's happening with CSS and CSS preprocessors, etc.
XML failed on the client and the web, but it's still used a bit here
and there, and it is used server-side and in Enterprise "dark matter"
that does not radiate onto the public web. I'm not dismissing those
use-cases but they've had to make do with a library (native code or
self-hosted).
I've had some experience with XML technology and writing web sites
without using them.
My take on the matter is that XSD, XSLT and the likes are interesting
technologies, but they are complicated and yet another language to learn.
I understand writing the validations/transformations I need in the
server-side language I already know in a couple of lines is more
attractive than learning a whole new rich language + binding API. I also
need to maintain a codebase written in one language.
David
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
