On 4/8/10, Jacob Todd <jaketodd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 06:22:49PM +0000, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
>> ...
>> P.S. I'm new here. Why's XML so evil? If you don't have to test for
>> well-formed and validness, that is.
> http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/xml/
We can all agree that XML is insane as a interchange format between
databases. But for basic markup, when markdown/(re)StructuredText
sn't a fit, it allows one to use a (hopefully simple) generic parser.
Sexp(r)s are bloated with type info, and have a name which can get
them confused with structured-expressions. XML is (ugh)
SGML-compatible and quite readable if used sparsily, and only used to
add semantic info to content in another language such as English or
SPARC-assembly. Some Tcl-based syntax would maybe suck less, but is it
worth it to get rid of XML-style closing tags?
title lolcats
author Thorlacius Bjartur
author Friend Imaginary
para {
This is a slightly better alternative to XML.
}
para "XML at least doesn't require quotes:
[ http://w3.org/TR/xml ]"
para [ /bin/games/fortune ]
# URIs enclosed in []s get replaced by the resource.
