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

Re: PSVI formalization

• To: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Subject: Re: PSVI formalization
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 10 May 2002 19:10:51 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3CDC5168.DAF58C09@r...>
• References: <DC1124C4368AA9438D9DEC34ECB6F162013EBB51@o...><1020968914.984.2380.camel@l...> <3CDB7075.2089A08A@r...><1021037339.984.2440.camel@l...> <3CDC5168.DAF58C09@r...>

On Fri, 2002-05-10 at 19:02, Ronald Bourret wrote:
> Of course not, but lots of people are using it, and that makes it a
> worthwhile choice. The point is not to choose the best way to exchange
> information portably, but to choose a good enough way that is used
> widely enough that information can actually be exchanged.

That's reasonable, though I've spent a fair amount of time arguing that
XML isn't actually "a good enough way" to carry the particular kinds of
information that people want to exchange.  

It may work for a while, but I'm not sure whether XML's carrying
capacity is up to that load.  It may be time to flag the bridge or put a
weight limit on it.

The PSVI seems (to me) to be practically begging for a more appropriate
transmission format than XML.

Dunno.  I'm working on some projects to get information out of binary
formats and into XML, so maybe I'll take what I learn to go the other
direction and see how it goes.
 
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: PSVI formalization
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• References:
  • RE: PSVI formalization
    • From: Matthew Gertner <matthew.gertner@s...>
  • RE: PSVI formalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: PSVI formalization
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: PSVI formalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: PSVI formalization
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: PSVI formalization
• Next by Date: Re: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• Previous by thread: Re: PSVI formalization
• Next by thread: Re: PSVI formalization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread