At 12:44 PM 1/20/2003 Monday, Tyler Close wrote:
> No, but doc-code is just an alternate representation of the XML.
> XML is a standard. There are standards for specifying the
> structure of an XML document. XML also seems to be a more popular
> standard than CORBA. If you're looking to jump on a bandwagon, XML
> seems like the better horse to bet on.

I endorse this perspective. In the modern world, for a system to be 
widely
adopted, code must use curly braces and data must use angle brackets. 
Just
as E concedes on the curly bracket front (ie, the C-tradition syntax 
issue)
in a minimally offensive way, and without conceding on the issues that
matter; it looks to be me that WOS does likewise on the angle bracket 
front
(ie, the XML compatibility issue).

To reiterate, what I need for the next CapTP is a readable textual 
syntax
that can honestly claim to be XML compatible without paying the 
complexity
costs that normally come with such a claim, together with an efficient
binary syntax which encodes exactly the same meaning. WOS looks like it
meets these goals well. I've heard the OMG has defined an XML syntax 
but I
haven't seen it. David, do you have a URL? For use in CapTP, any 
comparison
of CDR to WOS must compare both the binary syntaxes and the XML 
syntaxes.

Technically, saying "CDR compatible" means something, whereas saying 
"XML
compatible" is mostly vacuous[*]. But marketing-wise, the situation is
reversed. The world has gotten stupid.


[*] Saying "Compatible with XML DTD Foo" would be non-vacuous, but 
there is
no standard XML DTD I'm aware of that would be suitable for this 
purpose.


----------------------------------------
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

         Cheers,
         --MarkM

_______________________________________________
e-lang mailing list
e-lang at mail.eros-os.org
http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/e-lang