Re: why hierarchy?

erk wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
> > Joe Kesselman wrote:
> >
> > > Reminder: XML is intended as an interchange syntax, and therefore was
> > > designed for maximum simplicity.
> >
> > If that was a design criterion, they failed miserably.
>
> Hear, hear. Manipulating XML in any language (I've primarily used XSLT
> and DOM/SAX/JAXB/Castor in Java) runs you smack into the shambling,
> bulky incoherence of the XML "InfoSet."

Most heartening idea I had today: check hotjobs.com for hits for the phrases "sql" "xml" "xpath" "xquery" "xslt". After all, everyone is under the impression that ruby is taking over the world, when in fact it isn't.

sql: 13884
xml: 7340
xpath: 124
xquery: 35
xslt: 950
xml-schema: 115

So while it appears that *some* kind of use of XML is common, use of things like xslt is fairly rare.

> Apparently its "designers" never fully understood Antoine de
> Saint-Exuper: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more
> to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

I like it!

Marshall Received on Thu Jul 27 2006 - 05:19:08 CEST