[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Friday 17 January 2003 17:06, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > ConciseXML solves the verbosity and ambiguity of
> > XML 1.0 while while remaining compatible with
> > XML 1.0. ConciseXML is designed for data as
> > well as documents.
> >
> > ConciseXML has four key improvements to XML 1.0:
>
> "ConciseXML" is *not* compatible with XML 1.0. I wish you would drop this
> inflammatory claim.
Doesn't that depend on what you mean by compatability? My printer and my
computer are very different things, but with the right adapter they're
compatible. If conciseXML and XML 1.0 can be cross-converted without
information loss then they're way more compatible than my printer and my PC,
let alone that ConciseXML seems to be a superset of XML 1.0 :-)
Now, "compatible" is, in my opinion, a symmetrical relationship; if A is
compatible with B then B is compatible with A, right?
So if ConciseXML was a subset of XML, eg XML-minus-doctype and so on, would
you then allow it to be called compatible?
Because if not, then what *is* compatible with XML?
Anyway... my point is, I think it's wrong to say that Concise isn't
compatible with XML. It might be more valid to accuse it of being a set of
non-standard extensions to XML that could cause problems if writers start
producing them without knowing beforehand that the readers will be able to
read them...
ABS
--
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
- ARP
|
