Re: Ada Reference Manual 2012 in info format

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Thu, 10 May 2012 09:13:56 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a écrit:
>> Not for everything: for when a standard structured serialization is  
>> really
>> better (and that's often the case).
>
> I don't know what "standard structured serialization" is.
May be my English is not so good, sorry :P I meant, standard serialization  
for structured data, structured as a tree, and potentially as a graph, via  
IDs and IDREFs.

> But XML is bad
> for serialization (if persistence meant). It is awful to describe
> structures (because it lacks means to handle dependencies, referential
> semantics, decomposition means, whatever abstraction power, types,  
> semantic
> checks present in any language since FORTRAN IV etc. As a "language" it  
> is
> really retarded.)

That's the role of document type definitions, which can be either DTD (the  
legacy and most widely used solution, which is inherited from the SGML  
era), or XSD (the most standard one along with DTD) or RNG and Schematron.

>> Then, XML does not came alone, it comes with XSLT, XPath, XQuery and
>> XProc,
>
> Which also reveals much about its usability. You don't need any tools to
> handle a *usable* thing.

No? You don't need tool to check Ada source legality?


-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University