Quote:
Originally Posted by fowlplay4
How come? I found it pretty easy to use and think it would be easier to understand than functions and dot notation but to each his own I guess.
|
XML is a format which took SGML and reused its syntax to make, basically, the most verbose format possible for document encoding. XML is near impossible to view by the human eye, and is misused and misappropriated and the majority of cases. As a format that "handles anything", it handles nothing particularly well.
To quote Jeff Atwood:
You could do worse than XML. It's a reasonable choice, and if you're going to use XML, then at least learn to use it correctly. But consider:- Should XML be the default choice?
- Is XML the simplest possible thing that can work for your intended use?
- Do you know what the XML alternatives are? (YAML, JSON, etc.)
- Wouldn't it be nice to have easily readable, understandable data and configuration files, without all those sharp, pointy angle brackets jabbing you directly in your ever-lovin' eyeballs?
Then, you go on to mention XSLT, which is a
meta-syntax for this, in my opinion, extremely verbose and overused syntax of XML. So, you suggest to take a format which should never be viewed by the eye, and convert it to another format which should still never be viewed by the eye... in order to construct a simple tree?
Furthermore, you say this combination would trump the built-in GS2 grammar of functions and function calls. I think that is just about as ridiculous a claim someone can make regarding clarity.
03-19-2010, 01:33 AM
Hybrid Mode
