|
|
Posted by "ChaosMedia > WebDev" on 07/06/05 11:38
Richard Lynch wrote:
>
>In my limited XML experience...
>
>I have found that firing up the fancy XML parsers and tree-walkers and
>XML-writers and all that stuff, pretty much entailed a *LOT* more work
>than just hacking the file directly, and stuffing in the XML text that
>need to be there, or reading the XML and using http://php.net/explode on
>it.
>
>
well i would personnaly go straight to regexp then
>Just my opinion.
>
>Disclaimer:
>I consider XML the biggest bugaboo since Y2K -- Blown all out of
>proportion and over-saturated by hypesters who have NO CLUE what they're
>talking about.
>
>
you're probbaly partialy right about that, i've seen some quite lame xml
stuff considering the extreme verbosity of that kind of structure..
anyways i guess the main idea with xml was to build a serious
replacement for our current html.. And considering your opinion above i
guess you must think quite the same thing of html, right ?
but what i was merely pointing out in my first email was that php
seriously lacks a solid xmldom library.. I've used xml to do many many
things including some fancy ones, using various languages and never had
to scratch my head trying to understand what was going on, like what
happens here with php xmldom test..
maybe if you had a more reliable xmldom in php then you'd use it more
often and find out about the ease of use it can provide sometimes..
>Please send flammable replies to /dev/null
>Thanks.
>
>
>
sorry don't have /dev/null on my windows 2k crap :)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|