Re: Re: software design clarification

On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 23:30 +0200, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > (However, I can't resist pointing out that I very strongly believe XML to be
> > the wrong tool for the job. See http://www.rdb.com/demo/XML/ for why.)
> 
> I like the rant by Graydon Hoare, too. I guess that a least common 
> denominator will be a kind of DOM API if you prefer binary formats for 
> internal tree processing.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Object_Model

So, why is XML a bad format for representing parse trees?  The worst
thing about it that I can see is that parse trees have references to
identifiers that are described by other parse trees, and so the document
would have a bunch of internal pointers in it.

What reasons are there against XML in the specific case of ASTs?  It's
really great to point at a general rant that I largely agree with, but
do you have anything more concrete?

Have fun (if at all possible),
-- 
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed.  -- Alexander Hamilton
-- Eric Hopper ([email protected]  http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper) --

_______________________________________________
Synopsis-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fresco.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/synopsis-devel

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBGN0e5jtsvlOwvazYRAkMbAJ9fApuDekuO5GYaSpnVzgJlXkFkBQCfctMl
mwZ+GWHvxaJMVSAoVF0M8Gg=
=XjNO
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----