[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect.com> writes:
>
> Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
>
> > Archive isn't an isolated capability. Archive implies
> capability for
> > usage. Usage implies a mix of concerns. Does placing a inscribed
> > stone tablet in a air tight iron box meet the requirements
> of archive
> > if no one knows how to interpret the inscriptions on the
> stone tablet
> > at any point in time?
>
> Well, it worked great for the Rosetta Stone.
Umm, you missed the point: at several points in time (presumably) the
inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone could be interpreted. But I suspect
the point's too subtle....
> Give people a bunch of
> labels, and they can often figure it out - even in languages
> they don't
> know, given enough time.
>
> I think the topic at hand is inline markup. How could omitting the
> markup make it easier to understand the meaning and structure of the
> contents of a file?
That's a good topic, but I think just part of the thread. Personally, I
was (at least at some point (no pun intended)) attacking the question of
when to use XML. For me, even when addressing the question of archive, I
see more value in XML as an interchange format than I do in a archive
format. Not to say it's a bad archive format, just to say that I don't
see why it stands the test of long term usability necessarily better
than any other format. XML parsers may be just a curious artifact of
the past in 20 years...
|
