[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Blueberry/Unicode/XML

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 15:14:05 -0500

It offsets the web brain damage revealed by comments like:

>I apologise due to my Dev Knowledge being of the M$ type.

or the telling gaps in the XML design demonstrated by 

>Or we are already developing an incompatible document context for XML.

and the deeply insightful

>I suspect this is why Len feels that this is an
>SGML problem - the easiest way for the parser to keep pace is to be
provided
>with a map of characters at processing time.

which as you said, is alright with you.

And after the schema vs schemata debate, I thought absurdity 
was popular.  

OTOH, I stand by the comment below.  For the 
long haul, SGML is a safer better bet.  Safety and convenience 
are sometimes uncomfortable bedfellows as anyone who keeps 
secure data on a Palm unit they leave at the airport finds out.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...]

At 08:17 AM 11/07/01 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>XML is designed for a short haul timespan.  
>When you want to design for the long haul, 
>go back to the SGML parent and work from 
>there.

Len's a person who usually combines reasonable comments
with amusing, well-crafted, rhetoric.  I'm not sure why
he's veering into this kind of flamebait these days. -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Blueberry/Unicode/XML
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Syntax/Grammar
• Next by Date: RE: XML Syntax/Grammar
• Previous by thread: RE: Blueberry/Unicode/XML
• Next by thread: Re: Blueberry/Unicode/XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread