Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 12:54:44 -0400
At 12:30 PM 8/2/00 -0400, Jonathan Borden wrote:
>Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>> I suspect that using groves to define an Infoset for XML would be
>> great for
>> groves, but I'm not sure it would do anything good for XML.
>I think the big win for XML would be a way to define a mechanism to
>arbitrarily convert legacy data into XML. As the author of XMTP and
>developer of an early binary to XML system, I can't tell you how many times
>I get asked the question about how to send images, as XML or MIME, via SMTP
>or HTTP, using SOAP?
Perhaps - but I think that argument would be more convincing if there were
large arrays of tools for getting into these formats using groves. I'm
well aware that there are some tools out there, and that they can work
quite well, but I've yet to see the 'grove wave' in document management -
especially on the smaller scale projects where I tend to operate.
I'd love to be able convert legacy data to XML at will, but I'm not sure
this is the way to do it and fairly certain that this is still a red
herring in discussions of the XML Infoset.
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books