• To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>
• Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 17:07:35 +0000
• In-reply-to: <004201c2be59$7e0c3050$4b183044@tbp1>
• References: <004101c2be4b$762d4c60$6aa8a8c0@c...> <004201c2be59$7e0c3050$4b183044@tbp1>

On Friday 17 January 2003 6:21 pm, Thomas B. Passin wrote:

> In the ConciseXML version of the date attribute, the data is a string that
> has to be parsed, and you could just as well do the same in a reasonable
> XML version.  There is no use in contriving stupid XML examples to make the
> comparison more favorable to ConciseXML.

This is marketing; all's fair in love, war, and marketing! I've seen many XML 
proponents contriving stupid examples to try to prove the opposite point too, 
we need more biased and unfair anti-XML comparisons to redress the balance 
and try to undo the hype...

>
> Tom P
>

ABS

-- 
Oh, pilot of the storm who leaves no trace, Like thoughts inside a dream
Heed the path that led me to that place, Yellow desert screen

• References:
  • ConciseXML syntax
    • From: "Mike Plusch" <mplusch@c...>
  • Re: ConciseXML syntax
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Some thoughts on 'direct access' to XML (long)
• Next by Date: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Previous by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• Next by thread: Re: ConciseXML syntax
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread