Re: [xml-dev] Should one adopt the tag naming convention of an existing XML vocabulary or create one's own tag naming convention?
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:27 PM, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
--
Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net
Weblog: http://copia.ogbuji.net
Poetry ed @TNB: http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
Founding Partner, Zepheira http://zepheira.com
Linked-in: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/uche
Twitter: http://twitter.com/uogbuji
http://www.google.com/profiles/uche.ogbuji
Uche Ogbuji scripsit:
> If that were the case then writing XML parsers would not be one of the more
> challenging tasks any programmer can face.
I wouldn't call it challenging; it's just full of unfortunate corner cases.
Writing a C++ parser, now that's challenging.
I don't think too many people would claim that C++ is about programmer convenience either. ;) (Sorry, couldn't resist)
But my point more accurately stated is that not only is writing a low-level XMl parser hard, but XML is known to have some of the hardest "APIs" in the business. SAX? DOM? Some have tried to make it easier, e.g. XOM, Amara, maybe Stax, but really there is only so much you can conceivably simplify for a programmer with XML.
It' very hard to have a programmer-friendly format of any sort that is also very friendly to the richness of human context. I like XML's balance for the most part, but if you insist on shifting the balance in favor of programmer friendliness, you pretty much go with YAML or JSON.
Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net
Weblog: http://copia.ogbuji.net
Poetry ed @TNB: http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/
Founding Partner, Zepheira http://zepheira.com
Linked-in: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/uche
Twitter: http://twitter.com/uogbuji
http://www.google.com/profiles/uche.ogbuji