• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Why XML?
• From: Matthew.Bennett@f...
• Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:27:49 +1000

Hi All,

I appreciate XML's strengths re: markup, but I don't think it has much of a
role in data exchange. Why would anyone use something as arcane as XML when
flat files have worked perfectly well since .... whenever. Between
'trusted' parties, anyway.

Two things make me wonder about the competence of those who designed XML.
1. If you wanted to keep it comprehensible, why invent nonsense like
attributes? What can they do that nested elements can't? W3C has violated a
first-order principle of language design; that there should only be one way
of doing something, such that everyone ought to devise the 'same' program
to solve the 'same' problem. COBOL obviously is the grossest offender in
this regard, but XML's scarcely any better. And 2. If a start tag must have
a matching end tag, what purpose is served by that ridiculous slash in an
end-tag?

Cheers,
Matt Bennett

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why XML?
    • From: Mitch Amiano <mamiano@n...>
  • Re: Why XML?
    • From: Paul Warren <pdw@d...>
  • re: Why XML?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Why XML?
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Why XML?
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: What are the characteristics of a good type system for XML?
• Next by Date: RE: Why XML?
• Previous by thread: RE: XML-SCHEMA Q: Adding an xsd:attribute to an xsd:element
• Next by thread: Re: Why XML?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread