RE: [xml-dev] RE: Formatting Processing Instructions

["Len Bullard" <Len.Bullard@ses-i.com>]

So far no one has introduced a virus through IADS.  However they manage
it, as hedges go, it's sturdier than any web browser.  It's usefulness
is a question of cost and deployment strategies.  We keep up some creaky
architecture to make these mil-std deliverables.

HTML can do the job for IETMs and print.  That's the point.  As I said a
while back, the problem of the IETMDB was delivering it at all.  If you
want to derive multiple deliverables from a single document db, it has
to be created but creating it in XML is not the most cost effective way
to do it.  It's a pretty good way to archive it with enough
documentation.  I repeat what I said in Atlanta:  IETMs are a problem
that is either too difficult to solve or too profitable.  At least in
the case of IADS, it isn't a development cost.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] On Behalf Of John Cowan
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 11:30 AM
To: Len Bullard
Cc: Betty Harvey; Rick Jelliffe; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] RE: Formatting Processing Instructions

Len Bullard scripsit:

> The PDFs spit out of the B and C standards are almost identical to
> vanilla HTML layouts so the claims aren't as justifiable as they once
> were with the exception that having your own code base is still the
> best security hedge.

That's like saying that having your own encryption algorithm is the best
security hedge: it's true only if your organization is second to none in
code maintenance or cryptography, as the case may be.