Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Sunday 06 February 2005 01:52 pm, Kurt Cagle wrote:
> Several years ago, there was a movement to "simplify" XML, with a lot
> of mud being slung on both sides.
What.. ? there already was a monster mudfight in the swamp..?
that sounds like fun was had... :-)
> Significantly, after a while, the argument died away, because of the
> realization that any simplification of XML reduced its use for others who
> found their core needs no longer met.
but I'm only advocating adding an encoding strategy for dealing with
business data from the data-centric database world. To giver faster
throughput and reduce the capacity for xml data processing errors.
If there are swamp monsters from the past, then I say let them be, as
long as I can blow my own bubbles where the water is warm and
the air is clear.
> I think that by forking XML yet again, you run the risk of
> marginalizing yourself with a use case that buys you some efficiency
> gain for a limited set of applications...
Well... some swamp creatures are happy like that....
but adding in half baked concepts is a long tradition in xml.....
Get out the old DEC RSTS/E PDP, if whatever xml descendent won't
run on that thing.. with it's 9600 baud serial lines... then maybe only
then I would be worried..
otherwise... I don't think we should be afraid to add to the pot... I can't
see running out of memory or hard-disk space anytime soon....
seems to me, we should be more worried about our lifes work
filling 5% of a memory stick.... makes you wonder what we do all day..
Computergrid : The ones with the most connections win.