Lists Home |
Date Index |
Alessandro Triglia wrote:
> True, with XML 1.0 you can use any Unicode viewer (or any EBCDIC viewer, or
> any SHIFT_JIS viewer, or any xyz viewer, etc., depending on the
> circumstances) -- you don't have to use a specific program like the MS XML
> 1.0 viewer that is built into IE. But still, if FI viewers became
> ubiquitous, what would be the fundamental reason for concluding that FI does
> not comply with the "view source" paradigm?
In the short term (by which I means a few years, maybe even a few
decades) there's probably not a lot of difference. In the long term,
i.e. centuries or more, the difference might become significant. Many of
the NOT XML formats are much harder to decode without pre-existing
knowledge of the format or even the specific schemas used to encode the
information. Whether this is true of the FI version of NOT XML or not, I
don't know. The real question is whether the full information content of
the document is present in each instance. The level of redundancy also
matters. Compression is the enemy of robustness.
Elliotte Rusty Harold firstname.lastname@example.org
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!