Re: [as-devel] Re: XML (was: 1.8 ?)

Andrew Sullivan (asullivan@sprint.ca)
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 19:12:00 -0400 (EDT) 

Well, I'm expressing support in principle.  Just not in fact.  Lemme see
what free time I have during this blissfully long weekend, and if I have
anything to offer, then I'll make my support real.  (i.e. if there's no
code, it's not support)

----
Andrew Sullivan | asullivan@sprint.ca (home)| sullivana@bpl.on.ca (work)
                                   *  *  *
AfterStep FAQ: http://afterstep.davidv.net or http://www.afterstep.org/FAQ 


On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Ethan wrote:

> 
> On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Albert Dorofeev wrote:
> 
> > I have had some experience with the new stuff, technology,
> > rules, file formats etc. I suppose that while XML may be
> > gaining some popularity it is not quite as widespread as
> > HTML. As far as I understood XML is somewhat like HTML.
> > Now, why do those companies that produce HTML decoders keep
> > putting out new and new versions of their browsers and those
> > browsers keep crashing? Do you think it is really as easy
> > as snapping fingers? I have big reservations about *any*
> > new technology. I could use XML for a little applet, for
> > example, no big deal to rewrite it from scratch later.
> > But a window manager? No, I would not do it.
> 
> XML (like HTML) is a subset of SGML, and thus shares many properties 
> with HTML.  However, the differences are important.  Unlike HTML, XML is 
> not being worked on by commercial companies whose main goal is to make 
> their products look like they use open standards while in fact being as 
> incompatible as possible with their competitors.  XML has no optional end 
> tags.  XML has no optional language features.  XML has very few native 
> "tags" (like ENTITY), and there is never more than one way to interpret 
> them.  Basically, XML has none of the "features" that force companies to 
> continually fix their HTML browsers.
> 
> I can certainly understand your reluctance to embrace XML - I felt much 
> the same way when the idea using XML was first suggested to me.  I'm 
> still not entirely sure that XML would be the best way to go, but I think 
> it opens up some nice options.
> 
> XML parsers (like Sasha's new configuration code) create a memory 
> structure of the whole config file.  This would make creating integrated 
> look & feel files which don't necessarily completely replace the already 
> loaded look & feel (themes, anyone?) easier.
> 
> XML (also like Sasha's new code) provides a mechanism for nesting 
> options.  This might also help with themes:
> 
> <config apps="afterstep,Wharf,WPager">
>   <!-- general configuration options -->
>   ...
> </config>
> <config apps="afterstep">
>   <!-- AfterStep-specific options -->
>   ...
> </config>
> 
> XML can handle all of our current options with a more consistent format 
> (okay, I haven't checked each one, but I believe this to be true :).
> 
> XML is easily readable by both machine and human.  A general XML 
> configuration tool could be written, which knows nothing about AfterStep, 
> and could still be used to configure AS.  It wouldn't be nearly as pretty 
> as ascp, though. :)  Also, ascp itself could incorporate rudimentary 
> support for unknown features (ie, unknown to ascp) by allowing entry of 
> tags and attributes directly.  This is much like an HTML editor, which 
> allows editing of the raw HTML.  Since XML also provides a consistent way 
> to define the format of a file, AS could provide a document type 
> definition (DTD) which defines all known tags and attributes, allowing 
> ascp to give hints to users about new features.
> 
> As I said, though - I'm not prepared to do all the work of switching to 
> XML myself.  I'm going to drop this subject until someone expresses 
> support of XML.
> 
> ----
> Ethan Fischer
> allanon@crystaltokyo.com
> http://members.xoom.com/allanon1
> 
>