In article <Xns94B1A5863FF0DZenZenPsychocom@203.29.75.35>, 
Zen### [at] ZenPsychocom says...
> Anyways, I'd be interested in hearing why this is a stupid idea.
> 

Not sure if it is stupid exactly. However, XML is not a language so much 
as a container. You can organize things with it, but nearly all 
implementations use a <SCRIPT> block of some sort to provide the 'real' 
code that makes all of the stuff work. That block contains all the stuff 
that actually provides functions, program control, etc. In other words, 
it is still a container, it just happens to contain the code that ties 
all the pieces together. If you make it so it does more, then it really 
isn't XML anymore.

The other issue is the discussion being done about object oriented 
design. XML can provide a 'known' structure, but it contains no 
implementation for changing that structure dynamically during use. So, 
you could do:

<union>
  <box ...>
  <box ...>
  <sphere ...>
</union>

but not programmatically use if/then or other mechanisms that provide 
flow control to selectively remove one of those objects. The XML only 
provides the structure and data, not a means to manipulate it. Again, if 
you change it to allow this, then it isn't XML anymore. The result would 
either end up being nothing more that a drastic redesign of the existing 
SDL that adds a lot of extra junk, but with the same function, or if you 
stuck to more strict XML standards, you would make it too inflexible to 
do even half of what the existing system allows.

XML is useful for what is was designed to do, but for some reason 
everyone thinks it is the answer to every problem now. It isn't, nor was 
it ever intended to.

-- 
void main () {

    call functional_code()
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

Post a reply to this message