Subject: Re: The horror that is XML
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 00:22:31 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Erik Naggum
> The parsability of arbitrary XML is such an obvious design goal of XML...

* Kenny Tilton
| Well, you posted early on something I recall as three different ways to
| say (or interpret?) the same thing. I am not an XMLer, but I had read
| enough to come to the same conclusion. So how could anyone parse that
| blind? Or did you mean the DTD would sort out the alterniative meanings,
| at which point the wackiness of DTDs can kill you?

  I am still not sure what you are referring to, but the main difference
  between SGML and XML is precisely that you do not need the DTD to parse
  an XML "document".

| Are y'all lookin for a language in which one cannot write bad code?

  No, just a language that has static style checking and does not stop at
  proven correctness, but requires proven good taste.  This would take care
  of a lot more real-life problems than, e.g., static type checking.

  Really, i just want every single professional programmer to be competent.
  (The difference between a hobbyist and a professional programmer should
  have been accountability.  The difference today is whether he gets paid.)

  In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none.
  In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.