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

Re: Why XML for Messaging?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Why XML for Messaging?
• From: David Lyon <david.lyon@c...>
• Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:31:16 -0400
• In-reply-to: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D104F54B8D@R...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D104F54B8D@R...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.7.1

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 7:02 pm, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> Actually I was wondering if Len got this from some marketing literature
> or an article. Creating an XML API that can be layered on top of a
> binary format is as old as XML parsing APIs so I'd be surprised to see
> if someone was touting this as a competitive advantage

What? somebody selling facelifted clapped out old junk as the newest in 
technology in new packets?

That's unheard of !!

Do you think the customer will ever find out?

Anyway... pay no attention to this. I feel like xml-dev is a good
place for old men to go and have fights with their walking sticks.

ie who had the best parsers in the 1990s... who actually did
programming in the '90s. What markup was good in the '70s.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. It's certainly more
interesting than lot's of the "modern" junk that is being passed
off these days as hi-tech.

Too much of xml-dev seems to be filled with "my parser
failed when I fed it a space, why?"

Then we need an executive from some multi-billion dollar
company to explain to all of us why it is like that.

I love it... I really do....


-- 
Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.

• References:
  • RE: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: [ANN] YesLogic Prince 5.0 beta 1
• Next by Date: Faster XML (was: Why XML for Messaging?)
• Previous by thread: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by thread: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread