XML - An Introduction

Why HTML No Longer Works

HTML markup is fixed. The need for linkage, simplicity, and portability imposes limits on markup. And that's fine, if all you want is linkage, simplicity, and portability. However, if you want more, you have a problem. HTML is limited in:

• Intelligence - How well data knows itself
• Adaptation - How well data changes in response to changing times
• Maintenance - How easily data is cared for

Some intelligence is present in HTML. It knows that this is a paragraph, and this is a picture. But it doesn't know the paragraph is about Dick and Jane and the picture is of Brown Puppy. It focuses on basics, not specifics. Dick and Jane can't be torn from Brown Puppy if Brown Puppy is all you want. You get everything in one swallow: Power over intelligence lost.

You want more than HTML's limited markup. You want <DONUT> markup. You want <FILLED>, <SPRINKLES>, <FROSTED>, and <GLAZED> tags. But HTML won't give them to you. You could submit <DONUT> markup for exhaustive standards approval. Maybe you'll get it. If not, you're out of luck: Power over adaptation lost.

HTML throws everything in one bundle. It's hard to find and change the exact markup you want. Markup for look and linking get mixed in with data, without a clear division. Change the look, and your links may be lost. Change the links, and you might lose the look. Separate markup for links, look, and data don't exist. To change something you change everything: Power over maintenance lost.

Is there a solution? Yes. XML.

Why XML Will Pick Up Where HTML Left Off

Extensible Markup Language allows specific markup to be created for specific data. It has the virtues of HTML without any of its limitations. XML is strong in:

• Intelligence
• Adaptation
• Maintenance
• Linking
• Simplicity
• Portability

XML is intelligent to any level of complexity. Markup can be wrapped within markup, from general markup such as:

<DOG>Lassie</DOG>

to more specific markup like:

<DOG><COME_HOME><SCOTTISH>Lassie</SCOTTISH></COME_HOME></DOG>

Data can be so finely marked up that:

<SEEING_TWO>double</SEEING_TWO> and:
<MORE_LIQUOR>double</MORE_LIQUOR>

become infinitely separate values. The information knows itself.

XML is also a mother tongue for other languages, so languages like DickML and JaneML become possible. Adaptation is infinite. Custom markup can be created for any need. If markup describing the varying degrees of lumpiness in gravy is required, it can be made. No more fixed markup that limits the categorizing instincts of the masses.

XML is easy to maintain. It contains only data and markup. Look comes from its own stylesheet, and links are also separate, not buried in the document. Each can be maintained independently - no more wading through a markup mess.

XML uses one way to link, which embraces all ways to link. Not only that, it links in ways that HTML can't. HTML can do simple, one-way links inside or outside of data. In addition to this capability, XML can link two or more points inside or outside of data. There are even super-links intertwining all data within itself. Any link between any data can be handled.

XML is simple. The average user may disagree: compared to HTML, XML is more complex. But compared to other languages that achieve the same results, XML is simplicity itself. Unnecessary overhead has been stripped out, leaving only the essentials. XML gets to the point.

XML carries well. Its reasons for existence are power and portability. All a browser needs in order to view XML is the data itself, and the stylesheet that controls its look. If stricter validation is required, a description that lists its exact meaning can be used, with only slightly more overhead.

The solution is here...