[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bob Foster wrote:
> I have to say I love that answer! But seriously folks, if a different,
> perhaps non-text format didn't call itself XML but went to the trouble
> to be compatible with XML APIs, would that be a bad thing? Would it
> bring on the end of western civilization as we know it? (Would that be
> a bad thing?)
This has already happened. A trivial example is the Java library class
javax.imageio.metadata.IIOMetadataNode:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/docs/api/javax/imageio/metadata/
IIOMetadataNode.html
This represents something that is not XML (the documentation even
states that it "is not intended to be used for general XML
processing"), but which can be accessed and manipulated via the DOM
API. You can have data that is accessible via the DOM API, but that
doesn't make it XML. One of the primary purposes of DOM was to be able
to manipulate HTML 4.01 trees - you're not arguing that HTML 4.01 is
therefore XML?
--
Chris Burdess
|
