Slashdot Mirror


Tim Bray on the Birth of XML, 10 Years Later

lazyguyuk writes "Tim Bray posts a lengthy blog on the birth of XML, formalized as 1.0 in Feb 1998. 'XML is ten years old today. It feels like yesterday, or a lifetime. I wrote this that year (1998). It's really long. The title was originally Good Luck and Internet Plumbing but the filename was "XML-People" and I decided I liked that better. I never got around to publishing it, so why not now?'"

4 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Re:10 Years and still waiting by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do you maintain a website? XML has been a godsend for those who want to maintain web and print output side by side. By keeping your data in an XML format, you can use simple XSL stylesheets to generate multiple types of output. See e.g. O'Reilly's XSLT Cookbook for dozens of very real-world examples (it's probably in your library).

    That's just one example of how XML technology has made coding easier. Others I'm sure will point out others.

    If you aren't a developer, then I'm not sure XML was supposed to directly revolutionize your end-user experience.

  2. Re:XML and Interfaces by MBCook · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here are some of the "fun" things I have run across in other people's (almost certainly custom) XML interpreters/producers:
    • Tags must be upper case
    • Tags can't be upper case
    • You must put line breaks between elements
    • There can't be any whitespace between elements
    • It's import to URL encode the XML before it gets sent from them to me
    • You don't need CDATA blocks, just put the ampersands and >s right in there, it'll be OK
    • Your XML should all be inside a CDATA block in container XML
    • No tags can self-close
    • Self closed tags need a space between the slash and bracket
    • Self closed tags can't have a space between the slash and bracket

    That's just what I can think of off the top of my head. We've seen quite a bit of crazy stuff. If everyone would just use one of the already written XML producers or parsers (the big ones, the ones that work) life would be much easier around here from time to time.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
  3. Re:10 Years and still waiting by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Does anyone still use latex2html? All of the TeX users I know who care about HTML output switched to tex4ht years ago. It produces a variety of XML formats, including XHTML (with MathML) and OpenDocument.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Re:Regex by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative
    You fail Computer Science 101. Regular expressions are exactly as expressive as finite automata. A finite automaton is incapable of solving the matching brackets problem, since that requires a potentially infinite number of states in order to keep track of the number of open brackets in an input stream. Because of this, a regular expression can not be used to parse any XML schema that allows an arbitrary depth of nesting, since parsing such a form with would require counting the open and close tags to make sure they match, which is not possible with a regular expression.

    This is why regular expressions are typically used for lexical analysis (tokenisation) not syntactic analysis (parsing).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News