• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: SV: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 21:45:50 -0500
• In-reply-to: <p04330100b86b3dd564f5@[192.168.254.4]>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <575CBD83AE7DD411A23500B0D049C2F941A405@SRVSOCRATE> <p04330100b86b3dd564f5@[192.168.254.4]>

On Wednesday 16 January 2002 09:48 am, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> That's exactly what I do think. Embedding meta-data within data
> offers huge advantages. Debugging's just one of them. XML formats
> are more robust. They are easier to author. They are easier to edit.
> They are fail-fast. They make it very easy to find and fix problems
> when they do arise. They are easier to extend into non-tabular
> structures. They are better in a very real sense. That's why people
> use them.

Hype. Go look at InstallShield's XML projects. For every 1 good use of 
XML, these is at least 1 that is bad.

> I'm not totally convinced that XML is quite as semantically opaque
> to a computer as you think, but even granting that we have two
> formats which are the same to a computer but one is significantly
> better for people. Guess which one I choose?

Again though, it depends on the use. I've seen so much *garbage* in 
XML recently that it makes me quite ill.

• References:
  • RE: SV: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: Nicolas LEHUEN <nicolas.lehuen@u...>
  • RE: SV: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SV: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Next by Date: Re: Xml is _not_ self describing
• Previous by thread: CSV was Re: SV: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Next by thread: RE: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread