Re: [xml-dev] What does it mean to say that XML was over-engineered?
Peas ... A beautiful post.
...
I have a mind myself and recognize
Mind when I meet with it in any guise
No one can know how glad I am to find
On any sheet the least display of mind.
Robert Frost
Am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021, 03:24:14 MESZ hat Rick Jelliffe <[email protected]> Folgendes geschrieben:
Is a Swiss Army knife (SGML) over-engineered compared to a knife and fork (XML)? For the people who need to do complex things, no. For the people who need to do a few simple things, yes.
And are knives and forks over-engineered compared to chopsticks (CSV?)? Does the fact that much of the world gets by with chopsticks "prove" that knives and forks are over-engineered? In the future, when we all use sporks, would that prove that knives and forks were not up to the job, or just that we had all fallen prey to honey-lipped spork salesmen?
To me, these are not remotely objective questions: all they do is provide a MacGuffin for our individual personality traits. A person who likes to minimise the chance of their peas falling off the plate will choose a knife and fork, and consider themselves smart; a more visionary person may say the answer is to create a specialized fork-shovel, and be frustrated that it isnt obvious to all; a more root-cause thinker may say that the real problem is serving peas on distant plates when they should be in small cups we can pour into our mouths; another may think that the problem is a non-problem if the cook just made chopstick-friendly pea patties.
But what makes little sense, to me, is to call something "over-engineered" for a scenario it was not engineered for in the first place. "Too complicated for this" or "not powerful enough for that" and so on are adequate terms. A thing can be called "engineered" if it came about through certain disciplined and lesson-learning human activities, applying science and rigour to a technical goal: it is not a property of the thing but its history, how it was made. Few things can be considered "over engineered", by that definition.
Rick
On Wed, 15 Sep. 2021, 08:49 Roger L Costello, <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
subscribe: [email protected]
List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php