[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>> Even a casual reading of XML specifications will show that you can
define
>> data types that require a special parser to interpret them, which
could
> be created - i.e., one that conformed to the XML standard.
> If he's correct, could someone give me an example of a special xml
parser?
He is making the point that XML does not automatically mean "open". For
example, you could take a WordPerfect binary document and compress it
with gzip, then base64 encode it inside an XML tag. It would
technically be well-formed XML, but impossible for anyone to do anything
useful with it (other than extract proprietary WordPerfect files).
On the other hand, he would need only glance at some XML from Word 11 or
InfoPath to see that Office is *not* hiding any information. One might
wonder why he would mention these two unrelated things (Office 11 XML
and "proprietary XML") in the same article. Perhaps it was ignorance?
Or maybe he wanted to create an impression in the reader's mind? You
may speculate for yourself.
|
