• To: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Subject: Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easierto author) XML
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 15:30:31 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• References: <016901c21af5$f5275320$0200a8c0@e...> <3D163BB5.31362495@p...> <01a201c21b00$de9127c0$0200a8c0@e...> <3D16463F.4010407@t...> <3D164B49.141501E5@p...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020529

Paul Prescod wrote:

> If the instances are generated under your control by a machine, then by
> definition they won't use the short-tag feature if your regexps don't
> support it. The complexity argument also does not wash: entities and
> CDATA sections easily add the most complexity to XML of any feature.

Machine-generated XML usually doesn't do entities or CDATA.  It does do

<someTag>
  ..stuff..
  ..stuff..
</someTag>

and perl is just the ticket.

> The one thing that strikes a cord with me is the phrase "at this point".
> It's too late to make changes to XML.

Indeed. -Tim

• References:
  • Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
    • From: "Rob Lugt" <roblugt@e...>
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easier to author) XML
    • From: "Rob Lugt" <roblugt@e...>
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easierto author) XML
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easierto author) XML
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easierto author) XML
• Next by Date: RE: on the subject of schema crunching...
• Previous by thread: Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easierto author) XML
• Next by thread: Re: Suggestions for a slightly less verbose (and easierto author) XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread