Re: Water vs o:XML

I remember a rather braindead thread on xml-dev regarding Concise-XML, the
XML-'compatible' format they use ->
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200301/threads.html#00322

o:XML is built on the idea that there are significant advantages to
representing programming logic in an interchangeable, processable format
such as XML.
It also tries to take advantage of the data formats that are native to XML
- strings and trees - and XPath. The point is that XML should be enabling
and empowering rather than restrictive.

Water seems to go the opposite way in fitting XML around all the
traditional programming data formats and constraints, and lands us with a
solution where the actual XML seems extrinsic to the processing model.

At least that's my impression. I think the attitude is reflected in many
places in the article 'the trouble with XML' [1], eg:
"The most common and most important kind of computer data is code."
/snip/
"Lack of by-position arguments and the lack of elements as attribute
values makes XML a lousy syntax for the most important kind of data on a
computer."
It really sounds like someone with a rather narrow programmers perspective
on XML in particular and IT in general.


regards,

/m

[1] http://waterlang.org/doc/trouble_with_xml.htm


Martin Klang
http://www.o-xml.org - the object-oriented XML programming language

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Yves Moisan wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just bumped across a site (http://www.waterlanguage.org/) that presents a
> language called Water that is deemed to be the "the only [language] that
> actually executes XML"  How does that compare with o:XML ?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> o-xml mailing list
> o-xml-zRfLyl9bSvv/[email protected]
> http://lists.pingdynasty.com/mailman/listinfo/o-xml
>