Hi,

XML seemed to me just to be a way to add object orientation to documents
to make the document better accessible from (often) object oriented
software.

Torsten

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006, Michael Haupt wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 3/13/06, Todd Blanchard <tblanchard at mac.com> wrote:
> > It doesn't.  He is of the "documents everywhere" mindset that is enamored of xsl and views the world as streams and transformations.
>
> I had the same impression.
>
> At one point, the author claimed that XML was the next due
> abstraction. At that moment, the text looked as if it tried to suggest
> that all future programming would be done in XML. I wonder where that
> may lead, what with XML not being a programming language and with no
> "good" languages available for processing it.
>
> Maybe I have missed a point in the article, but I haven't found the
> spot where the author actually states what languages are, in his
> opinion, the ones available for processing documents and streams. That
> is, which languages express the transformations?
>
> > He also applied for a job here and then stood me up for his interview.  Can't say I take him very seriously.
>
> Ah, no offence intended, but I'd rather not go personal on him.
>
> All the best,
>
> Michael :-)
>
>
>