use Perl

• XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:2)

  by hfb (74)

  It has been around how long now and how many people have actually figured out how to use it and what to use it for? Stick with TeX and LaTeX and wait for the fad to blowover.
  • Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:2)

    by Matts (1087)

    OK, if you're really not trolling...
    
    Lots of people are using XML. Lots of people are using XML successfully. More importantly perhaps, lots of people are using XML unsuccessfully because they have overblown expectations of it (a.k.a. hype).
    
    But XML, in the document management field and elsewhere, works. I can write a book for O'Reilly in DocBook, and they can chuck it through their processing toolset and have a book come out the other end. I can use SAX tool suites to process DBI and Excel files the sam
    • Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:2)

      by hfb (74)

      Power is often passed over for simplicity as nature favours the path of least resistance...this would not be XML. DTDs are stupefying and the mess of CPAN modules is beyond even my ability to figure out which goes where when and how. I have lurked for many moons on the XML list and I have yet to really understand who and what are in which ring of the circus.

      I don't think people have lofty expectations I just think they're as confused as I am as to what this blob of stuff is really supposed to do and how
      • Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:2)

        by Matts (1087)

        "Power is often passed over for simplicity as nature favours the path of least resistance..."
        
        Which is why a lot of this is a good thing. To be able to learn a single toolset (XML processing) and apply it to DBI or Excel spreadsheets, or whatever you may please, is a simple thing and a good thing.
        • Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:2)

          by hfb (74)

          XML is not simple. That's the problem. Have you tried wading through the XML mess on CPAN lately? Nothing seems at all simple about that.
          • Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Matts (1087)

            OK, ok.
            
            I fixed the SAX "problem", now it's time to fix the modules problem.
            
            (note: you could say the exact same thing about all the templating modules, or all the DBIx modules, but nobody bitches about that. Sheesh)
      • Re:XML already is going the way of the punchcard (Score:1)

        by vek (2312)

        ...and the mess of CPAN modules is beyond even my ability to figure out which goes where when and how.
        
        I think it's a little unfair to pick on the XML modules for not being intuitive. Have you tried doing a search on Apache lately? Holy clusterfuck Batman...
• I agree (Score:2)

  by Matts (1087)

  To an extent I agree. The docbook processing tools are crappola. Really they are bad. But I can't really agree with the XSLT tools. Simply stick a <?xml-stylesheet?> directive in the top of your file, and either deliver it via AxKit, or view it in mozilla or IE, and it'll be beautifully rendered for you.
  
  As far as XSLFO goes, the people I know who write books with it use PassiveTeX, not FOP, because FOP's output still sucks (i.e. doesn't use TeX formatting rules). However PassiveTeX is even harder to
  • Re:I agree (Score:2)

    by hfb (74)

    I wasn't trolling actually...
  • Re: Splitting hairs (Score:1)

    by jjohn (22)

    TeX is a publishing markup language, and docbook is a technical publication markup language.

    The point is ASCII is easy to author in (at least I think so). Book printers need PS or PDF to print. Here, the source code (TeX or XML) is a convenience to the authors. The real world needs the information in a format usable by their tools. TeX isn't at all a general replacement for XML, but in the realm of publishing, it's often a better fit than docbook.

    Let me be plain: I want XML and docbook to succeed. I do
    • Re: Splitting hairs (Score:2)

      by Matts (1087)

      DocBook's biggest problem is over-complexity IMHO. I think most people would be better served with s-docbook (simple-docbook).
      
      But yes, we agree.
• DocBook (Score:1)

  by darobin (1316)

  Nice, you've found out that DocBook sucks. Hmmmm. How you get from there to the fact that XML sucks is a bit beyond me though.

  In XML, you don't need DTDs. The fact that you chose to inflict those horrors on yourself is, well, not a problem with XML :) Also, XSLT are very much there and very mature, I fail to see how you managed to have a problem there.

  --
  

  -- Robin Berjon [berjon.com]
• A few clarifying points (Score:2, Interesting)

  by jjohn (22)

  I'm happy to have provided some talking points and perhaps a minor distraction from Bigger Things with my rant. Lest hfb get beat up too much for agreeing with, let me make the following points:

  • XML as Rosetta Stone XML excels as a medium of data exchange. That is, XML makes the process of moving information from one application into another much simpler. I had a job at CareerSearch [careersearch.net] in which I had to deal with DBF, CSV and fixed positional ASCII files of all kinds. If the data had all been in XML, it wou
  • Re:A few clarifying points (Score:1)

    by jjohn (22)

    Sorry about the typos and what not in the last post. My net connection was getting flaky and I couldn't risk a "review". Hey Nandor, how's the XML-RPC interface to slash coming? I could have writing this in emacs... :-)