• To: 'Dare Obasanjo' <dareo@m...>
• Subject: RE: If XML is too hard for a programmer, perhaps he'd be better off as a crossing guard
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:29:16 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Perhaps, but there are an awful lot of us out here 
glad to have XML for [expletive deleted] text out of MEMO fields.  
Not using namespaces is an option.  Liam is dead 
on about the uptake of structured data that was 
previously ignored, and he might have added, the 
migration away from delimited ASCII.

... sitting here laboriously writing yet another 
XML Schema in PFE because in a relational shop, 
it's just documentation and who needs tools 
for that.  Former SGMLers who worked for INGR 
before the mass exodus will understand.

It isn't that it is too hard for a programmer; 
it is how hard programmers can make it for others 
because they just won't RTFM.  C++ programmers 
are the enemies of progress. :-)

There is probably a paper or article in the topic 
of how many ways one can make life hard because 
one knows too much about to-the-metal coding in 
a time of converging standards.

len


From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@m...]

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"). 

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