Bob La Quey wrote:
Hmm ... you almost sound like a fan for a failed rebellion :)
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/11/sml/index.html
Hey it was fun at the time!
I think that your main issue was that 1999 was too early to begin that call.
Too many people didn't yet know about XML. UTF-8, wuzzat? I'm not sure
*I* knew about those in 1999, and I am better informed about this kind
of stuff than most.
So your call went only to those people with an entrenched opinion having
just fought the war to get XML politically acceptable. And getting XML
accepted as being "politically acceptable" was *the* big win for XML.
There is nothing inherently technically superior about XML.
PS. My main argument, rarely articulated was that "all of the
crap layered on top" could only be elegant and simple if the
basis were absolutely as simple as possible.
My main argument is that XML is dumb data and should be treated as such.
The problem is that all of the other crap attempts to give the data
"smarts". That's a recipe for disaster. For example, the "ant" build tool.
If you need a programming language, you need a programming language.
Use that. If you need dumb data, then just use dumb data. Problems
arise when the two get confused.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
