use Perl

• sleepy (Score:1)

  by gav (2710)

  I skimmed the article and nearly dozed off. I'm bookmarking it for a future sleepless night.
• XML.com (Score:3, Insightful)

  by ziggy (25) on 2003.03.31 11:38 (#18546) Journal

  Is it just me or is xml.com increasingly becoming a waste of otherwise perfectly good bytes?

  Perhaps you're no longer in the target audience for XML.com anymore. It used to be a great place to peek inside the minds of those who were defining the bleeding edge. Today, I don't see XML's bleeding edge as interesting anymore. Getting real work done is more of a priority, and XML.com seems to have refocused on that goal.

  This article was pretty bad, but I don't think it was as bad as you made it out to be. There is definately an art to designing an XML vocabulary, and virtually no one has attempted to document it. I give kudos to XML.com for starting the dialog, but chide them even more for publishing XML fragments that are invalid. (The backhanded attack on Perl is invalid.)

  I don't think design patterns were ever supposed to start life as something written in stone. Perhaps there's a good way to discuss XML vocabulary design as a set of design patterns. These certainly aren't the foundation patterns, but at least it's a start.

  Reply to This

  • Re:XML.com (Score:2)

    by darobin (1316)

    I think I can trace back the shift to not long after they sent out a survey, so you may be right. I don't really care about stuff being bleeding edge, I just like quality content. Even if it's targetted at beginners, it's usually possible to skim good introductory stuff for a nugget or two.

    I'm not saying that there isn't an art to designing XML vocabularies -- there most certainly is one -- but I am however saying that the author knows nothing about it. There have been other articles focussing on t

    --
    

    -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]
    • Re:XML.com (Score:2)

      by ziggy (25)

      I'm not saying that there isn't an art to designing XML vocabularies -- there most certainly is one -- but I am however saying that the author knows nothing about it.

      Agreed. I'm willing to give XML.com the benefit of the doubt in letting this depressingly bad article through the filters because it was the best available article on markup design, or because the pitch sounded better than the article itself.

      This article was not devoid of useful content though. The pointer to use Dublin Core would be u
      • Re:XML.com (Score:2)

        by darobin (1316)

        Yes, I wouldn't have blamed xml.com if this had been the first article I'd seen there in the past three months that I felt was really useless, but that's not the case. It's part of a stream of boring articles, low on actual technical value, with too-frequent technical mistakes and that one happened to trigger the LowQuality-O-Meter.

        As for DC, you're right of course, though DC happens to be one of those vocabularies that I can never bring myself to throw in because it seems so limited :) XHTML (modu

        --
        

        -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]