Am Son, 2001-10-07 um 18.29 schrieb 1002472199:
> > Yes, but not very versatile...
> Why? It contains the tips and a minimum amoutn of clutter. If you equate
> evrsatile == xml because everybody claims to support it I disagree
> completely.
No, but unlike compiled catalog files xml files can be changed in many
ways with any tools and even at runtime and remotely. This makes it
very versatile.
> Yeah, but a) nobody does that (right)?
Changing tips at runtime is maybe not the killerapplication, but it
could be quite handy for other purposes.
> > The problem with SGML is that it's too complex to grok completely and
> > that's why a large amount of people simply ignored it; XML is a subset
> That's a story I never heard of before. The reson SGML was not used is
> because it was very powerful and complex to implement.
That's also very true.
> For humans it is easy to grok.
> You are comparing sgml with xml-applications. I could just
> claim that most sgml-applications are much easier to grok for humans than
> xml namespaces or schemas.
The problem with SGML is that for every purpose there's a different
approach, you'll never stay within SGML but always have to learn DSSSL
or other ideas to make it useful. With XML it's different - everything
you want to do is within XML, you can validate it with XML (schemas) or
transform it with XML (XSL) and that makes a huge difference.
It would be rougly comparable if you could programm nice programs in C
but would have to learn scheme to execute them and python to identify
the results in the printed garbage on the console.
> this doesn't sound too encouraging, no? yes, it was a goal to keep xml
> "human", but this is a minor goal, others (ease-of-use for machines!) were
> more important.
Yes, but I really like and appreciate the fact that it is very
human-readable and that's why I mentioned it.
--
Servus,
Daniel
