Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 01:32, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 10:17 AM -0400 4/9/04, Michael Champion wrote:
> >Pandora's box was opened in 1997. XML 1.0 is optimized for SGML
> >compatibility, and that turns out to be a decent compromise between
> >human readability and machine processability for a lot of common use
> >cases. All sorts of other use cases might be optimized: Wiki-like
> >markup languages are optimized for human editability; there are XML
> >serializations that are optimized to save space, (see
> >http://xml.coverpages.org/xmlAndCompression.html) and there are XML
> >serializations that are optimized to be quickly parseable (e.g.
> >http://www.ximpleware.com/). XML has reached a point in it's
> >evolution where people with some of these use cases are wondering
> >whether XML's non-optimality for one thing or another outweighs the
> >very real benefits, and are trying to figure out how to refactor
> >things to get most of XML's benefits with fewer of its costs.
> The problem with optimizing for such situations is that the result
> tends to be less optimal for others. It's like trying to push out a
> bubble in wall-to-wall carpet. Can't be done without cutting the rug.
> Push it down one place, it pops up again somewhere else.
> XML is very nice compromise between the needs of many different
> systems. It's very compromise nature makes it wonderful for moving
> data between heterogeneous systems. Optimizing XML for particular
> environments and uses such as routers, wireless devices, numeric
> data, remote procedure calls, record-like documents, etc. will make
> it far harder to exchange data with dissimilar devices and use-cases,
> even if it accomplishes some small gains in a limited, homogeneous
> There are some use cases where XML is just not appropriate. I've been
> saying for years that's it's not suitable for what I call images
> scanned from nature: digital photographs, sampled audio, recorded
> video, and the like. It likewise may not be suitable for the smallest
> of devices. I wouldn't try to stuff it into a hotel doorlock using a
> 4-bit processor, for example.
reckon it could work well there, so long as the 4 bit processor isn't
trying to run linux, unix, or windows at the same time.
we used to rule the world with a 4004
> However, for what it does work for, it
> works very well; and trying to make it work better for some of the
> current use cases, or for new use cases, at the expense of existing
> use cases and interoperability does not seem wise.