XML is *not* a typesetting language. Its a meta-language for defining other languages, just as SGML was. It is *not* limited to describing documents, and its far from being a limited to describing layout. My own doodlings with XML and Taxonomic data [1] shows that the DELTA format can be expressed as XML without loss of information. Its probably too early to get mired in syntax discussions - at present it may be better to assume that all examples merely that - not formal proposals for how the serialised data should look. The model is the important issue at the moment. Once that is nearing completion, decisions on a serialisation syntax (XML or something else) can then be made in highlight of concrete examples and data. Personally speaking, I'd be surprised if there were aspects of a taxonomic data model which *couldn't* be adequately expressed in XML. At most I'd expect there to be some contortions in the syntax, rather than a complete inability to represent the data. The question is then, how much does the syntactic 'sugar' outweigh the network effect of embracing a standard like XML. My 2p. [1]. http://www.ldodds.com/delta/index.html L. -- Leigh Dodds, Systems Architect | "Pluralitas non est ponenda http://weblogs.userland.com/eclectic | sine necessitate" http://www.xml.com/pub/xmldeviant | -- William of Ockham
participants (1)
-
Leigh Dodds