Thank you for your comments about XML, Dan and jbone.
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've had something very similar to this discussion with someone else
> regarding Newtonscript-like frames vs. XML. Both are tree-structured data
> formats. The real key difference, and the reason XML "wins," is that (while
> more verbose) XML is much more of a "metadata structure." The ability to
> "dialect" the data language via DTDs and the separation of structure
> definition from data representation make it much more flexible. The cost is
> some increase in complexity and size of data, but this is more than
> compensated by increased utility. A pure-block Rebol implementation, even if
> dealing with all-Rebol componentry, still suffers from the same deficiencies
> -wrt- XML as, say, Newstonscript frames.
I don't understand how XML is more a metadata structure than REBOL. There is
no reason you can't define certain REBOL dialects as representing data and
requiring an associated REBOL Type Definition.
I found this in the current XML FAQ (dated 1 June 1999):
> C.11 I keep hearing about alternatives to DTDs. What's a schema?
>
> Bob DuCharme writes: `Many XML developers are dissatisfied with the syntax of
> the markup declarations described in the XML spec for two reasons. First, they
> feel that if XML documents are so good at describing structured information,
> then the description of a document type's structure (its `schema') should be
> in an XML document instead of written with its own special syntax. In addition
> to being more consistent, this would make it easier to edit and manipulate the
> schema with regular document manipulation tools.'
The quote of Mr. DuCharme follows this seemingly contradictory DTD definition:
"A DTD is a file (or several files to be used together), written in XML, which
contains a formal definition of a particular type of document." But then it
talks about converting DTDs to XML!
Are DTDs written in XML?
-Karl Robillard
