• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd bebetter off as a crossing guard
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:21:15 -0800
• Cc: Liam Quin <liam@w...>,Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B7CA30@R...>
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B7CA30@R...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> The "Desperate Perl Hacker" argument  was a bogus claim for XML 1.0 because of the existence of entities and CDATA sections but is quite farcical now with the existence of the Namespaces in XML recommendation (and it's bastard spawn "QNames in content"). 

Empirically false, at two levels.  First, lots of people process XML 
with perl (or equivalent) all the time.  Second, the real requirement 
was to make it tractable to take a large body of document data and make 
quick programmatic changes on it.  Which, obviously, XML makes way easier.
-- 
Cheers, Tim Bray
         (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd bebetter off as a crossing guard
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd bebetter off as a crossing guard
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>

• References:
  • RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: GXA specifications process
• Next by Date: RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard
• Previous by thread: RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard
• Next by thread: Re: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd bebetter off as a crossing guard
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread