[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> >Kindly excuse my ignorance. I had no idea incompatibility was one of
> XML's design goals.
>
> You're excused. Go read
> http://xml.coverpages.org/burnardBelux0.html#cznk1 it'll help in
> understanding a lot of the why of XML.
I don't really have any difficulty understanding the "why" of XML, and
before the patronisation becomes intolerable must declare that I have had a
relatively long-standing (occasionally rocky) relationship with XML. I can
understand your enthusiasm to evangelise though - in general it is
incredibly useful stuff.
What I find remarkable is how developers can be comfortable working with,
even promoting formats like Userland RSS, which calls itself XML but with
the expectation of the client using heuristics when it is ill-formed.
It should also give you an
> understanding of why there is a need for something like RDF for XML.
XML has no use for RDF. RDF (probably) needs XML. Web applications need
something like RDF, fortunately they have RDF.
Cheers,
Danny.
|
