Lists Home |
Date Index |
Mark Evans wrote:
> functions, and relational tables. Microsoft is so successful
> precisely because they understand this fact so well. That is why I
> can run DOS programs under Windows 2000.
Hmmmmm... No. Microsoft is successful for many other reasons, the
least of which is backward compatibility, which has been less successful
for them than you may believe... Remember when Windows 95 first came
> I grant that RELAX NG may be better. Frankly, I've never heard of it
> until now. I looked at the web sites. Ho hum is my impression --
> more XML tweaking when what the world needs is a stable XML standard.
Hmmmmm... No. Stable crap still smells, looks, and tastes like crap.
Not that I've ever tasted crap, but I can't imagine that it's at all
yummy. SGML was relatively stable... not that it's crap... So why
does XML exist?
> It's not that I particularly love schemas (though much better than
> DTDs). It's just that I have seen this downward slide before. Example: while
> Microsoft plodded along with its notoriously inept Microsoft
> Foundation Classes, no one else offered a stable alternative, so MFC
> became the standard for Windows development. Notice I said, "stable"
> alternative. The same arguments won the day on those battlegrounds, too:
> "this is what industry supports."
Actually, Borland, for a while had something called OWL, which was
technically vastly superior to MFC, but Microsoft refused to let them
ship the Windows SDK (or whatever the hell they call that beast) with
OWL, effectively killing the product. At least, this is what I remember
to be the case, if I'm wrong, someone correct me.
Tom Bradford - http://www.tbradford.org
Developer - Apache Xindice (Native XML Database)
Creator - Project Labrador (XML Objcet Broker)