on 11/18/01 9:11 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this is a little disingenuous. XML has its history in SGML, yes. > However, the SGML standard (ISO 8879) was published in 1986. It's also true > that SGML was originally based on GML. However, to claim that XML has "a > history that extends back into the late 1960s" is really to claim that XML > has a history in markup languages. Yep, and Java has a history in > programming languages, which go back even further. ;-) > > -- > Martin Cooper I agree. Creating a language parser and compiler is generally pretty difficult. However, XML is easily parsed and converting the tags (markup) into something that can be executed is pretty easily done. It makes me want to puke every time I see someone repeat using XML as a way to create their own language because when real languages are designed, quite a bit of thought goes into creating the grammar and how things fit together. When Joe Foo is able to snap together his own pseudo language out of XML tags, I go running. It is just silly to use XML to define a language. It is a markup definition tool. Having a way to easily parse it and deal with it does not make it a language! Regardless of history, I see BOX as being just another wannabe framework. When I say wannabe, I don't mean that it doesn't yet exist or is trying to be something it is not. I mean that it is some guy out there pushing on the world what he has created for himself and completely ignoring the fact that there are already a bazillion other tools out there that do exactly the same thing, just as easily, only in different ways. Yawn. This discussion is boring, how many times has someone come around here pushing their new and improved web app framework that does everything? -jon -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
