The discussion over proposals for a simplified
markup language -- essentially a pared-down XML --
is proving far from simple itself. The latest
issues discussed include internationalization,
attributes and a challenge over use-cases.
A row over English-only element names was
sparked
by Don Park's publication of a proposed
EBNF grammar for SML. As noted
by David Carlisle, the EBNF only allowed for
ASCII alphanumeric characters as tag names. Park
responded that the limitation was a suggestion to
test opinion.
In another thread of the discussion Rick
Jelliffe, a staunch defender of XML's sufficiency,
cast
down the gauntlet to find use-cases where XML
failed and SML was required. Seeing as a lot of
discussion is revolving around small-memory
devices such as cell phones, and nobody in the
discussion seems to know how much memory such a
device actually possesses, it will be interesting
to see if any failure cases of XML are
proposed.
Following the publication in XML.com of an
article about SML, renewed debate ensued over
the exclusion of attributes from SML. Don Park
opened the issue for debate, and Rick Jelliffe responded
by saying that attributes make programming
convenient:
It seems that most XML programs are written so
that
the elements "push" programs but attributes values
are "pulled" in. So the programmer does not need
to concern themselves with attributes that are
redundant
to their task. To make everything an element
would
reduce the choices available to a programmer.
Paul Tchistopolskii disagreed
with Jelliffe, claiming that the convenience
is there for writing the document, but complicates
the processing of a document. In another post, as
an
aside, he urges that S-XSLT (simplified XSLT)
should be written. One can only hope that
debate is saved for later!