SGML the next big thing?

[roddey at us.ibm.com]

>This & thing is so far outside the way most other computer languages
>work that standard off-the-shelf parser generators roll on their
>backs and wave their paws in the air and admit defeat.

Personally, I think & should be limited to just 'leaf' nodes only. This
would keep it sane, and allow it to be implemented as a special case
content model (as we already do for Mixed anyway.) This would provide a lot
of usefulness without forcing everyone to throw out the very fast and
compact DFA type representations in wide use now, or implement another
(much more complex one) in addition to.

People should accept the fact that XML is not going to solve all problems
and still stay light enough to remain what it was intended to be. Schema
will already be very bloated with all the other stuff in it now. I
guesstimate that a Schema implementation will probably be at least twice
the size of the existing parser code in most implementations, if not more
so. Anyone think differently?

----------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Software Weenie
IBM Center for Java Technology - Silicon Valley
roddey at us.ibm.com



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)