Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Lyon wrote: >Liam, > >I was reading this article... > >http://www.advogato.org/article/820.html > >so everything is looking good for an xml 2.0... with datatyping >and other good stuff... > > > i know it's way too late, but here's the thing i dislike most about xml: overloading the < symbol. until 10 years ago this was a "less than" sign and had a partner, the "greater than" sign. and it was used that way for about a century and a half. and < is for me, one of the unreadables of xml. x < y => x < y ??????? now it is an angle bracket and part of a confusing overloading of symbology. syntactically, xml uses opening symbols of <, <!, <?, </ and <![. as these are not white space delimited it is therefore not lr-1 for parsing...... however i do like the specific start/end tag stuff and don't want to lose it. it would have just been nicer to use a real bracket combination. not important in markup (so i'm not flaming anyone) but a pain when you extend to data and scripting - rapidly becoming important uses of xml. i chose square brackets for my own markup language - [] - which predates xml by about 15 years for exactly this reason. opinion #1 on this subject. rick begin:vcard fn:Rick Marshall n:Marshall;Rick email;internet:rjm@z... tel;cell:+61 411 287 530 x-mozilla-html:TRUE version:2.1 end:vcard
|
