[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Michael Kay wrote:
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Mainly because of design goals 4 and 6, which few other candidate formats
>have either stated, or achieved:
>
>4: it shall be easy to write programs which process XML documents
>
>6: XML documents should be human legible and reasonably clear
>
>These two goals (and XML's success in achieving them) enable the data to
>outlive the current generation of software used to process it.
>
>
and they have to be stored on a medium that is long term accessible. i
have lots of stuff on floppy disks, tapes, etc that, while archived, is
for intents and purposes inaccessible without a trip to the computer
museum. the format is only part of the issue.
for all their faults stone, metal, paper, vinyl, etc have fanastic long
term archive properties.
>Admittedly, they do require the designers of the particular vocabulary to
>share the same philosophy.
>
>Michael Kay
>http://www.saxonica.com/
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
>
begin:vcard
fn:Rick Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick
email;internet:rjm@zenucom.com
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
