From: Premshree Pillai <premshree.pillai@...>
Date: 2005-01-06T00:00:44+09:00
Subject: Re: evil XML?

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:53:37 +0900, R. Mark Volkmann <mark@ociweb.com> wrote:
> I changed the subject because this has really gone off topic.
> 
> Quoting "Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com>:
> 
> > | Ruby culture says: keep it simple, keep it short, keep away from XML.
> >
> > This XML stuff is weird. Seems that a lot of people have a bad idea about
> > it because of the *huge* XML files a lot of Java stuff needs. I agree that
> > there's a lot of mess around there, a lot of no necessary complexity, but
> > this kind of generalization is not healthy.
> >
> > I know YAML is very, very more simple than XML, but XML is helping us to
> > make the web more well-designed and with more semantics.
> >
> > Try to give a look on XML with XSLT, it can make some cool stuff.
> 
> XML can be much less verbose if you use attributes instead of child elements
> when the data they hold is a simple value as opposed to a paragraph of text.

Well, you can't attribute that as _XML's_ fault, can you? I mean it's
upto the person who implements the thing to decide what the right way
to do it is.

> 
> For example, compare this
> 
> <car>
>   <make>BMW</make>
>   <model>Z3</model>
>   <color>yellow</color>
> </car>
> 
> to this
> 
> <car make="BMW" model="Z3" color="yellow"/>
> 
> I used to think XSLT was cool until I got tired of how verbose it is and how
> often solutions in XSLT require recursion.  I now prefer XQuery over XSLT.
> Currently though there aren't many good XQuery implementations.  One of the
> better ones now is Saxon.
> 
> --
> R. Mark Volkmann
> Partner, Object Computing, Inc.
> 
> 


-- 
Premshree Pillai
http://www.livejournal.com/~premshree