• From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
• To: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>
• Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 20:22:08 -0400

On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 11:21 -0700, Kurt Cagle wrote:
[...]
> I'm not sure more XML education works here though. Most times its a
> language prejudice - they don't want to learn XML because it's not Java, or
> JavaScript or Ruby, and because it can't easily be broken into "dot"
> notations.

XML is all about owning your own data - you own it as author. The
application doesn't own it and neither does the programmer.

As a result XML is not a close fit to any programming language, and
"hard-core" programmers tend not to like it.


>  Of course, I also think that the W3C missed a golden opportunity
> to create an e4x-like standard - an analog to XPath that would have fit
> more sympathetically into the C++/Java/JS formalisms.

Actually I agree; when we had the chance there was a "W3C doesn't do
APIs" mantra. I don't know its source.

I'd also love to see golang-style concurrency in XQuery.

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Re: Native XML Interfaces
    • From: David Lee <dlee@c...>

• References:
  • Re: Native XML Interfaces
    • From: cbullard@h...
  • Re: Re: Native XML Interfaces
    • From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@g...>