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

RE: Partyin' like it's 1999

• To: "Robin Berjon" <robin.berjon@e...>,"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Subject: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:22:22 -0500
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcS7oYC7iITDa/OpQi+196vboTk3CQAAB5jQ
• Thread-topic: Partyin' like it's 1999

Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...> writes:
> 
> Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> > A radical suggestion:  maybe what they really need are binaries
> > and the creation of a binary specification can provide a subset 
> > of what is expressible in XML.  They aren't the same, just that 
> > it might be easier to create a subset outside XML The Spec.
> 
> I've been hearing that a lot recently. If it's true, maybe we should 
> keep it hush-hush for a while ;)
> 
> > Ok.  Any parties interested in posting their favorite five
> > bad problems with XML in order here?  I wonder what the 
> > consensus is on the top two.  (XML, not XML apps like 
> > XSD.)
> 
>    1) DTDs
>    2) other legacy cruft
>    3) DTDs
>    4) more legacy cruft you always forget is there
>    5) DTDs
> 
Since I don't have to write any tools to actually support DTDs they
actually sort of, almost, help me more than they hinder.  Maybe Len
needs to divide the question between two (more?) camps: 1) XML users, 2)
XML tool builders?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: "John L. Clark" <jlc6@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by Date: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Previous by thread: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread