[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 2002-05-10 at 03:02, Ronald Bourret wrote:
> "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> > Once you have that much metadata about "quantity" you can do an awful
> > lot of things you couldn't do when "quantity" was a textual type
> > identifer applied to text. You can optimize the representation of that
> > integer - which is what I've proposed - and you skip an awful lot of
> > intermediate processing to reach that number.
> >
> > If all you really want is the number, why monkey around with text?
>
> Portability. It's the number one reason to use XML, made relevant by
> XML's ability to represent a huge variety of information.
But is XML the only portable way to exchange information? I don't think
so. XML has demonstrated that portability is possible. It has not
demonstrated that XML is the path all portable information must follow.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
