- From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>
- To: Roger L Costello <costello@m...>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2021 20:33:34 -0400
The word itself means a bunch of things.
To me if a technology allows you to ignore i.e does not forcibly or otherwise expose you to the bits of it that you don't need it is not over-engineered.
OTOH Exhibit 1 of overengineered tech IMO are languages that force you to define a class in order to write "hello world"
I have always perceived XML as a scalable rather than over-engineered technology as the only concept it forces on you is well-formedness and every syntax has some grammar rules.
I prefer it to under-engineered technologies where you have to start importing libraries to handle basic everyday features like parsing delimited files, or regex.
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 6:49 PM Roger L Costello < costello@m...> wrote: Michael Kay wrote:
> Given that XML is over-engineered for many of the tasks
> that people were using it for, other standards better suited
> to a subset of those tasks were always going to emerge.
What does that mean, "over-engineered"? Does it mean, "too restrictive"? For example, XML does not allow two attributes with the same name to occur on an element. XML requires every start tag to have a matching end tag. Those are kind of restrictive. Is that what you mean by over-engineered? Or do you mean something else?
/Roger
_______________________________________________________________________
XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
[Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
|
Cart
