[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan writes:
> > Or were you trying to make that point through blistering
self-parody?
> > It's not April, so it's hard to tell. But if you wanted rejection
out
> > of hand followed by cackling hysterical laughter, you got it.
>
> Hey, you've been bitching about how the PSVI can't be serialized. I
> gave you a universal serialization for *any* Infoset-like
> thingumabob. Terseness was of minimal importance.
>
> Wuddaya want, egg in your beer?
No, John. I want formats that are actually useful, rather than
over-featured megaliths that address all questions by piling on
ridiculous internal links in forms which are hideously over-complex.
I've never claimed that the PSVI cannot be serialized. I have claimed
repeatedly that it cannot be serialized in a useful or friendly manner
which is even vaguely compatible with most ordinary expectations for XML
1.0.
I think you've demonstrated that quite completely with this disgusting
mess, and left me wondering yet again why the Infoset was even vaguely a
good idea in the first place.
So thanks for adding a small dose of clarity about my priorities to my
life! Maybe "serialization considered harmful" would be a good topic
for all future discussions of the value of markup.
Fortunately, my current reading of Norm's suggestion doesn't require
this kind of acrobatics.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
|
