[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Sat, 12 Feb 100 13:22:06 -0500 (EST)
Steve Schafer scripsit:
>
> On Fri, 11 Feb 100 07:45:58 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
>
> >Because the documents were 100% generated by a single
> >program whose behavior was entirely predictable.
>
> But isn't that rather beside the point?
"The" point? My point was that using XML as a data representation
does not dictate a processing model.
> For a given application, we
> can of course limit ourselves to a particular subset of XML or some
> other notation, and then write code that reads and processes only that
> subset. That doesn't get us any closer to answering the question of
> whether or not XML (or whatever) is suitable as a general-purpose
> notation for data abstraction.
"General purpose" means that something can satisfy many purposes
(clearly true), not every possible purpose (how can anything do that?).
--
John Cowan cowan@ccil.org
I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
|
