Lists Home |
Date Index |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
/ "Mike Plusch" <firstname.lastname@example.org> was heard to say:
| Out of the 50 email messages about
| ConciseXML, almost all of the comments
| have been of the sort:
| "but ConciseXML is not XML 1.0!".
| Although this is a true statement,
| how about any comments on the two
| key problems that ConciseXML fixes that
| are reoccuring issues across the industry.
| 1. XML 1.0 is verbose and is not suitable
| for many applications that people would
| like to use it for.
Then why do they want to use it for that?
| People invent new
| syntax all the time to avoid XML 1.0.
| For example, XPATH, XQuery, string
| encodings, CSV data, etc.
Yeah, and if I could turn back time I'd have worked harder to prevent
some of those.
| 2. There is not a single way in XML 1.0 to
| represent data fields that have a key and value
| where the key can be any type and the value
| can be any type.
And base64 encode the keys and values if they contain characters that
aren't in XML 1.1.
I'm not sure there's *any* value in what I've proposed but it
satisfies the existence proof. OTOH, I'm not sure there's any value in
being able to represent data fields that have a key and value where
the key can be any type and the value can be any type in XML.
Be seeing you,
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | The shortness of life can neither dissuade us
XML Standards Architect | from its pleasures, nor console us for its
Web Tech. and Standards | pains.--Vauvenargues
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----