Talk:XML/Archive 3

%28 replaces ascii '(' ??

What do they call this ascii replacement scheema you see it often in xml pages and url links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.135.171 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

see: http://www.w3.org/International/O-URL-code.html DRead (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Extended to?

Hi, I'd like to draw attention to the list of "Extended to" in the infobox, which currently lists lists "XHTML, RSS, Atom, ...". XHTML is an application of XML rather than an extension of XML, and I think these values would be better against the "container for =" parameter. This can be seen by the requirement that all XML document formats start with an XML preamble, similar to TIFF having headers which allow sub-formats within them.

I doubt there are any clear cases of extensions of XML, but if I had to nominate one, it would be RDF.

Likewise, I think the XHTML page should be changed from "Extended from: XML, HTML" to "Contained by: XML; Extended from: HTML". John Vandenberg 07:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

XHTML is a subset of the XML language. XHTML documents are also valid XML documents. RSS documents are also valid XML documents. I prefer to call these XML "dialects," as they more accurately describe what the languages actually are in relation to the base language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgmjr05 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links

How are these EXTERNAL links, may I ask?

• Expat free software stream-oriented XML 1.0 parser library, written in C.
• Libxml2 free software XML C parser and toolkit.

Nousernamesleft 19:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, they should not be in the external links section. I'll remove them. --Sydius (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a markup language

The first sentence of a wiki article is the most important, and I find "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a general-purpose markup language." likely to perpetuate ideas about XML being a "new" version of HTML. XML is not a markup language. I would prefer it described as either a spec to define markup languages or a metalanguage.139.133.7.37 19:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Request: Propose wording that you think corrects this problem, and then post it here on the discussion page. dr.ef.tymac 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a specification for creating custom markup languages. 139.133.7.37 20:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. What I did was add your clarification to the lead as an internal cross-ref. The rationale is as follows:

• in general, you raise a valid point about the potentially misleading implication
• the official name "XML" is (let's face it) as much a marketing tactic as it is a descriptive name
• the point you raise is really a symptom of how the "marketing" collides with "technical accuracy" ... more people understand "markup language" than "lexical specification" or "meta-language"
• because the "ML" of the official name stands for "markup language" it would be potentially confusing to a general audience to imply it stands for "meta language"
• the technical accuracy of your point is preserved, but it is indicated in a footnote. This keeps the lead section concise, minimizes potential for confusion, while still including your clarification in the article.

This seems like a reasonable solution to the common problem of clarifying "introductory-level language" that is technically inaccurate, but nonetheless widespread. Hope that helps, comments and feedback of course welcome. dr.ef.tymac 21:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all your points, and the solution139.133.7.37 15:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is more important to write things as correct as possible. Not as 'simple' (to most people) as possible. I suggest to switch the reference with the first line, so things would look something like this: The Extensible Markup Language is a general-purpose specification for creating custom markup languages. And the reference says something about the fact that it can be confusing (becaulse of the name XML etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.42.203 (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

*frustration* The article suggests in many ways that XML is a language. We should not write a simplified description of what XML is. This means: XML is -no- markup language, it has no file extension etc. Anything what makes people think that XML is something wich it is not, should be removed from the article. It should me much more -exact-. 80.126.42.203 (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'L' of XML stands for *language*. This is what w3c define it as. It doesn't get clearer than that. But what makes a language? Via XSLT, XML has loops and tests. It's as much a language as AWK. It's a language even if it's not Turing complete.

What do you mean 'it doesn't have a file extension'? The XML page clearly shows it with the file extension of .xml. Not that having a file extension is a requirement of a programming language (see shell scripts). peterl (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point questioning what a laguage exacly is. I don't know anything about XSLT/awk and not even much about XML. But I think that a "specification to create markup languages" a good description of XML. This also means it is not a language itself. With the file extension i mean: a file wich contains a markup language wich complies to the XML specification could have a file extension. Something like .xhtml. But a 'specification to write markup languages' is no file and has no file extension. 145.48.123.117 (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I might be wrong.. sorry.. 15:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.48.123.117 (talk)

Sorry again for saying dumb things. I do still think that the '{{Infobox file format'-box should be removed. It's saying nonsense like 'Type of format: Markup Language' etc. XML is not a fileformat at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.126.42.203 (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The note itself "It is often said to be a markup language itself. This is incorrect." in the references section requires some citation. It is no good to use the note/citation in the article without a citation to back it up, particularly as this is related to a major misconception. It may as well say "XML was invented by alien cows" otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.206.248 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Push vs. pull: clarification needed

An anonymous visitor rightly points out that Java STaX is a "pull" model, yet it is given as an example of "push" in the article. I don't think it's appropriate to blindly substitute "push" with "pull" in that section, though, since the Fitzgerald and Ducharme references apparently support the notion that it's push, not pull, that's gaining popularity. Can someone analyze this section and make it clear what's push and what's pull? —mjb 03:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

STaX is pull parsing, and this is the approach gaining popularity lately (although quite slowly). The discussion in this paragraph mixes arguments related to pull parsing (code easier to understand, allows to keep state in local variables) with background information on push parsing (most natural form using a recursive descent parser, well known in compiling theory). I think this section should be cut in two different sections, "Pull parsing" illustrated with SAX, and "Push parsing" illustrated with STaX and its ancestor XMLPull API. While "Pull parsing" is more friendly for the users of the parser, "Push parsing" is still the most popular option for implementor because it is much more straightforward to write a push parser starting from grammar productions. - 82.247.18.131 22:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Although i'm also "just" an anonymous visitor im also wondering about stax inside of push?!Could u change this? I guess i come back and see in 2 months if it didn't change by then i try to change it then here :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.61.216.36 (talk) 06:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed this. That section was way off in multiple ways, and may still have more prominence than it deserves. I've also fixed several other issues in these sections where people seemed to be using Wikipedia to get attention for their pet XML projects that have not achieved broad adoption, support, or consensus within the community. 209.212.73.133 (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The section still needs some clarification, especially regarding following assertion

This allows for writing of recursive-descent parsers in which the structure of the code performing the parsing mirrors the structure of the XML being parsed, (...)

which does not seem justified nor grounded on any reference. I do not think the reference to "recursive-descent parsers" really helps to make things clearer as it confuses two levels: the handling code is actually similar to recursive-descent parsers, but is not a parser per se, and the underlying XML Pull parser can be based on a recursive-descent parser or not. I propose to remove the mention of recursive-descent parser altogether and put something like:

The main difference between event-based parsing (or Push mode) and iterator-based parsing (or Pull mode) is the module which drives the flow of control: in Push mode, it is the XML parser, while in Pull mode, it is the handling code. The major impact is that the handling is more simple to write in Pull mode (while making the parser more complex) since keeping the flow of control also means keeping local variables alive. This allows intermediate parsing results to be stored and accessed as local variables within the handling methods driving the parsing. Examples of (...)

- Eric 213.128.113.197 (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

To complete my previous comment, it may be worth creating a separate subsection to introduce the two layers (XML Parser written by XML parser implementers and Handling code written by application developers). This may also be a good place to discuss comparison of XML with more general parsing theory and compiling. I'm not too proud of the term "Handling code" by the way so if anyone has something better to suggest... - Eric 213.128.113.197 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

In the section entitled "Sources", it says "XML is a profile of an ISO standard SGML". What does this mean? In particular, how is the word "profile" being used here? Does it mean "subset"? (but see the comment immediately above mine, entitled "XML is not a true subset of SGML"). Mcswell (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I second this question and think it should be clarified. The article says XML is a profile, the XML specification says "XML is designed to be a subset of SGML", but the SGML article says XML is an application of SGML. Which is it? If XML is a subset of sgml but not necessarily an application does that mean it could be an application? --ott0

Need to define allowed syntax for tag names and other tokens

Like articles on programming languages, this article needs a definition of what constitues a legal name, tag, token etc. before it begins to discuss more advanced aspects of tree structures.

For example Can there be a space between the '<' and the beginning of a tag name? Is <9tagName> a legal tag?

I second this. [1] is an appropriate source, but it looks like a whole day's work just to decode those characters.--Jesdisciple (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

The citation "XML is really just data dressed up as a hooker" should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.49.124.107 (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

icon

the icon/graphic for this article does not add anything and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree the example could be made a little more neutral, I think it is quite representative of XML, being short and showing explicit syntax of elements, text and comments. It also shows how XML is different from HTML, by using markup not related to presentation. 213.128.113.197 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

International use

I think this section would really deserve to be extended. I suggest putting more emphasis on the relationship with Unicode here. If someone has any details related to XML design with regards to Unicode from an historical point of view, it might be interesting. A discussion of XML adoption in different countries would be great too. - Eric 213.128.113.197 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Validation report on ISO/IEC 19503 ????

Would anyone please kindly provide me the citation of the validation report published in literatue??? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.94 (talk) 05:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What XML is and Relation to SGML

I think that for the people who already have some knowledge of HTML that the fact XML cannot actually be "universally interpreted" beacause it is more of a pseudo language. And the fact it cannot "universally interpreted" the statement that it is "a simplified subset of SGML" is misleading and should be clarified.--Melab-1 (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a language?

In the context of computational theory, XML is indeed a language. Ask any mathematician or computer scientist. It can be represented using standard grammars and (without actually doing the formal proof because I'm tired and don't feel like it) I'm pretty certain I could prove that RSS, XHTML, XSLT, etc. are proper subsets of XML.

Anyway, what is the rationale for representing it as a specification or file format rather than what it is? I read a couple of posts about people being confused that it is a subset or replacement for HTML or something like that. The community would be better served with an accurate depiction of the topic versus a not-so-accurate one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgmjr05 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well-formed examples incorrect

The section on well-formed documents includes examples that are incorrect, including this one:

<title>Book on Logic</title> <author>Aristotle</author> <title>Another Book on Logic</title> <author>Boole</author>

This is an incorrect example because the XML recommendation states that to be considered well-formed the XML must meet the definition of "document" as defined in the recommendation. "Well-formed" and "document" are defined here: 2.1 Well-Formed XML Documents

So, to truly be well-formed the example listed above must have a single containing element. In addition, to be truly meaningful, it would likely make sense to wrap each repeating sequence and call it what it is (a "book"). I would suggest the following makes the most sense:

<books> <book> <title>Book on Logic</title> <author>Aristotle</author> </book> <book> <title>Another Book on Logic</title> <author>Boole</author> </book> </books>

Thanks. I think I've clarified that now. TimR (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Describing XML

Might XML best be described as a syntax, rather than a markup language? I suppose this could be considered similar to the way that Java, Perl, JavaScript, etc. are described as having a C-like syntax. Note: I am not advocating this label. The idea popped into my head, and I wanted to see if anyone else agreed. Yes, no, maybe? Karl Dickman ^talk 00:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

DTD / schema considered "semantic?"

Why do we use the phrase "semantic rules" to describe the DTD / Schema? These seem like syntax rules, not semantics to me. I think of syntax as describing the set of acceptable strings (documents) and semantics as describing the meaning or execution process.

KLuwak 02:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "A schema is a formal definition of the syntax of an XML-based language, that is, it defines a family of XML documents." (Møller, Schwartzbach 2006)

--Cigsandalcohol (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag under schema

The list of criticisms under the section describing the schema (where I added the NPOV tag) seems biased and without sources. --Sydius (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The list of praise in the paragraph just above also seems biased the other way, and is equally without sources. I guess that makes it quite balanced? Maybe what you mean is that the section needs to cite its sources, like {{Unsourcedsect}}. I've altered the template to that.

Fair enough, but I think some of the comments are subjective. Citations would fix that, though (with a little rewording to go with who thinks those things). --Sydius (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just my 2 cents. Although I think that the criticisms about DTD help to explain why there are (so many) other schema languages, the criticisms about XML Schema would be far better in the appropriate XML Schema article (which has no criticism section for now). Here they are bloating the XML article. Adding sources is necessary, but it will add further material in this already huge article. I would propose to remove them from this article and put them in XML Schema. Hervegirod (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hervegirod has a good point. This content, regardless of whether it is appropriate without cites, should be moved with a "see main article" link here in XML. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Feel free to modify it as you think appropriate. I did not add another "see" section (specifically to the XML Schema criticism section), because I don't know the right way to link to two articles / sections in a header. Hervegirod (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Sydius (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Length

This page is 25 pages, printed, on my computer (at least 20, if you exclude links, etc.). That's way more than the 10 page guideline for splitting. --Sydius (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

AGREE 207.237.198.152 (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic; viewpoint is slanted

The entries aren't encyclopedic in any way, shape, or form, as it hardly explains anything. I also find the views to be biased and arguable. As such, it might be best to delete the entire entry, and start from scratch, preferably by someone who understands how and encyclopedia works, and, in this case, by a computer programmer who can present it in an unbiased manner. (Skaizun (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, and XML isn't programming so a programmer isn't necessarily better. --Sydius (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Is XML a language?

Someone expert enough to add a section to describe opinions if XML could be classified as a "language"?

XML is as much a language as RTF or the Latin alphabet is a language. XML is an extended alphabetic framework that allows the expression of languages, but by itself is not a language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamidot (talk • contribs) 13:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Extreme or Extensible

Currently the article states that the full name of XML is "Extreme Markup Language". Having never come across this naming before, and seeing how according to W3C XML's full name is Extensible Markup Language, I've edited the article to stick with this name. Could the person who considers XML to be extreme explain to me why this is? 193.141.12.233 (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it was serious. --Sydius (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! It looks like I had a hand in the confusion - I undid a good edit that had removed the nonsense, thereby accidentally reinstating said nonsense. Sorry! More haste, less speed, as usual. --Nigelj (talk) 07:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See also section is too big

I think the categories at the bottom adequately cover most of the see-also list. We don't need to link to every XML-related page in the see-also section. That's what categories are for. --Sydius (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Pox

Is Plain old XML worthy of a separate article?

Why is no mention of it made in this article ?(Ctrl+F POX, Plain - couldn't find it)

Just asking--ZayZayEM (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mention for support with web browsers

Since XML is viewed mostly over the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP), there should be some consideration of support for the number of web browsers, and its limitations, especially with "external entities". Not all browsers fully support all XML features, in the same way, and that some consideration should be considered when resorting to XML. Because you will not always get the same result.

Daemondevel (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)