Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> I'm attracted to the the idea if only because it seems "cool". I think the general reasoning behind xml-data and XSL (shiver of horror) is that if we settle on a uniform representation for graph-structured data in transit then we can (soon) live in a world where nobody has to write a parser for the stuff ever again. I mean, a scheme parser isn't exactly brain surgery so I'm less inclined to enjoy this argument when used in favour of XSL, but XSL has other reasons for existing. writing a DTD parser with architectural forms support is just another stumbling block to wide deployment of XML, and xml-data nicely circumvents the question. You can just write an XML parser (in a shoddy one-off proof of concept as many people are busy writing) and write your validator in terms of the objects the tried and true parser hands you. Given that those objects have really simple property-querying methods, it makes your code better encapsulated, less likely to mix validating with the parsing of architectural forms. at least that's the principal advantage I see. cool side note: you can use a DSSSL engine to customize an XML-DATA grove and dump out a new document type ;) or at very least typeset the metadata in a nice way.. -graydon <graydon@p...> ______________________ peccatum poena peccati xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
