[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk> writes:
>
> On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 15:45, Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
> > Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com> writes:
> > >
> > > XML is also an archive format. That might raise an eyebrow.
> >
> > I suppose so, personally, I don't expect archives to give
> me much in
> > the way of dynamic capabilities or currency. Having said that, I am
> > not a big believer in using XML as an archive format except
> for audit
> > purposes.
>
> I prefer it as a storage format to such as WP 5.1, 9.0 or MS
> Word. It does stand a chance of being workable in 5 years time.
Most assuredly so! To be clear, my orientation is towards the data side
of XML and not the document side. The issues seem much less clear and
much more complex when dealing with documents... (To be precise I
suppose I should delinitate this as highly structured vs. less
structured, but that's another permathread.)
> The tools will change, but the investment is in the
> information not the tools.
>
|
