Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 09/12/10 04:15, Simon St.Laurent wrote: > On 12/8/10 8:06 PM, Kurt Cagle wrote: >> David, >> >> There's a reason JavaScript web developers are often called script >> kiddies ... formalisms are often wasted on them. There's a great deal of >> nudge,nudge, wink, wink in the AJAX world. > > That's also changing pretty rapidly. > > I'd be _very_ cautious about looking down on JavaScript developers, and > not only because I am one. What's that I heard recently? "It used to > be that if you used JavaScript, no one took you seriously. Now no one > takes you seriously if you _don't_ use JavaScript." > > One thing XML could really stand to lose is its condescension toward the > greater Web world. It was here when I arrived, and doesn't seem to have > melted away. I was part of it until we started implementing XML...at one stage I had even thought the Web might actually use SGML, once plugins like Panorama had demonstrated that it was feasible :-) But I agree: some of it derives from SGML-origined baggage, but some is developer-origined condescension towards end-users (which is why XML editors for document-centric apps are so uniformly unusable except by people who already grok markup, for example :-) XML needs forking. Back-end markup-heavy apps need an XML with fats and calories and BCBs (ie some of the bells and whistles we left out of SGML putting back in; or at least their functionality, if not their syntax). Front-end webapps need a lighter-weight syntax with 1% fat and no added sugar or salt. And XML-as-we-know-it may just need to be laid to rest, with thanks for all the fish. ///Peter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
