Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
James Robertson wrote: > ... > I find it bizzare that another format is being considered > when support for the existing format (text XML) is so > pathetic! > > Sure, there are plenty of Java, Perl and Python tools. > Even some C and C++ libraries. But support across the > board is still along way from being a reality. > > I ask now, as I have asked before: can we just stop > creating new stardards, and get on with creating some > useful tools for the standards we already have? Did it occur to you that part of the reason it isn't more widely deployed is that it's too slow and/or bulky to fit some problems? I understand that what I'm doing might not make it to a standard. The point is to aim for something that is suitable for a standard as set of design constraints. Saying that it is intended to be the generic 'binary structured XML' equivalent to XML 1.0 implies all those constraints. The problem is that I have used XML in a number of projects and in the one with the most extensive use, current tools were far too inefficient to be a long-term solution. I'm trying to solve that elegantly in a way that I can use on all future projects, not just a one-off. > J > > ------------------------- > James Robertson > Step Two Designs Pty Ltd > SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy > Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution > > http://www.steptwo.com.au/ > jamesr@s... sdw -- sdw@l... http://sdw.st Stephen D. Williams 43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax Dec2000
|
