On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 00:40:06 +0900, R. Mark Volkmann <mark / ociweb.com> wrote:
> Quoting Premshree Pillai <premshree.pillai / gmail.com>:
> 
> > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:53:37 +0900, R. Mark Volkmann <mark / ociweb.com> wrote:
> > > I changed the subject because this has really gone off topic.
> > >
> > > Quoting "Eustaquio Rangel de Oliveira Jr." <eustaquiorangel / yahoo.com>:
> > >
> > > > | Ruby culture says: keep it simple, keep it short, keep away from XML.
> > > >
> > > > This XML stuff is weird. Seems that a lot of people have a bad idea about
> > > > it because of the *huge* XML files a lot of Java stuff needs. I agree
> > that
> > > > there's a lot of mess around there, a lot of no necessary complexity, but
> > > > this kind of generalization is not healthy.
> > > >
> > > > I know YAML is very, very more simple than XML, but XML is helping us to
> > > > make the web more well-designed and with more semantics.
> > > >
> > > > Try to give a look on XML with XSLT, it can make some cool stuff.
> > >
> > > XML can be much less verbose if you use attributes instead of child
> > elements
> > > when the data they hold is a simple value as opposed to a paragraph of
> > text.
> >
> > Well, you can't attribute that as _XML's_ fault, can you? I mean it's
> > upto the person who implements the thing to decide what the right way
> > to do it is.
> 
> Exactly right.  Pretty much any tool can be abused.  I'll bet it's even possible
> to write bad Ruby code.  ;-)
> 
> --
> R. Mark Volkmann
> Partner, Object Computing, Inc.
> 
> 

Also, document versus data markup are recognized as having different
needs. However, the benefit of having only one standard was assumed to
outweight the extra complexity of data markup. However, YAML does
prove the benefit of a light-weight data-centric markup quite nicely-
at least in a language like Ruby.

Also, I think it's important to consider the full suite of XML tools-
XML, XPath, XQuery, Schemas (DTD, Schema, RelaxNG) and XSLT (less for
this one)- and the ultimate user audience (programmers, sys admins or
business users).  Again this speaks to why you would want one
standard. I'm currently migrating a YAML prototype to XML so I can
considering deploying to business users who hate technology. The
verbose end tags in XML help here, as do schemas and end-user editing
tools.

RelaxNG fixes a lot of schema issues. The main issue with XML
remaining, IMHO, is XSLT. An alternate light-weight text syntax is a
nice idea, but there are some cool tools that do that, with
appropriate translations back and forth. And editors can simulate that
for the user as well (though that is less then ideal, since it may not
be in your favorite editor).

For the most part, I think XML and Java make a good fit. I'm more
comfortable with xml for configuration files I don't right myself.
Better error checking, schema validation, etc. And Java's verbosity
makes XMLs verbosity comparitively less intrusive for configuring
services, parameters, etc.


Nick
-- 
Nicholas Van Weerdenburg