Subject: Re: The horror that is XML From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 00:22:31 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * 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.