[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: [About Unicode] Why the symbol LOGICAL NOT is missing from
On Friday 04 March 2005 07:48 am, William J. Kammerer wrote: > David, could you succinctly explain why this new "language" of yours is > supposedly better than XML syntax? After all, isn't > > <ListserveCrank detachedFromReality="true" /> > > more succinct, efficient AND pleasing than > > <ListserveCrank> > detachedFromReality?=True > </ListserveCrank> > > ? A one record, one field example is a very rare occurance in any real world app. Once again I refuse to use it as the base for any meaningful comparison. It's like using one person in a survey and presenting their opinion as a statistical result. For a much fairer comparison, come back next week with a UBL document and we'll analyse that. That would be far more representative of a typical business application than your example above. but mudslinging in xml is very innefficient ... If you really want to convey your anger or bitterness etc try using some plain english and a careful selection of these characters; @$~&#%&$!. It's surprising what can be achieved. Must go... have a nice weekend... and catch up with you next week... Best Regards David -- Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|