Re: [Audacity-devel] Introduction + Plans
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Markus M. <me...@me...> - 2004-05-13 08:04:23
|
Josh, Am Don, den 13.05.2004 schrieb Joshua Haberman um 2:02: > On May 12, 2004, at 4:17 PM, Markus Meyer wrote: > I don't see how this is any better. Personally I think the idea of > using XML for scripting Audacity, at least in the way that is being > discussed, is crazy. None of the XML being proposed has any real > meaning. I see people complain about XML a lot, and I'm starting to > understand why. Let's see how XML has corrupted this discussion. I fully agree with your post. First, my intention was mainly to point out technical problems with Volker's example, without even looking at the semantic implications. I have worked with XML a lot recently, and it does have its strengths, especially when it comes to storing data and representing structure. Things like XPath and XSL are answers to age-old problems (in this case: adressing data items, bringing data items into human-readable form). Most of the "complaining" about XML results in the fact that it is used for the wrong things or used in a bad way. Often, people just take existing data and add some angle brackets around them and call it XML. That just adds to the verbosity, and nothing to the functionality. As a result, the advantages of XML are often not seen, because there are none in these cases. Second, I do agree with you that things like "scripting" are generally better done with "real" languages rather than XML (which syntactic elements are very limited), simply because these are more powerful in syntax and semantics. I do think there are existing standards to this, though, and there's no need to reinvent the wheel. In my opinion, Python should become for scripting what XML is for data. Markus |