(Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes:
>Perhaps, but it seems that we as XML application language
>designers and members of working groups should take on
>the challenge to reuse as much pre-existing productions
>as make sense to the particular language.
If it's a wrapper format, fine. Call it a wrapper format. Don't sell
it as a new XML format.
This spec appears to be creating a whole new set of semi-random numbers
and letters, and calling it XML.
>Lists of numbers are common, BTW. X3D has them too.
>But when SVG and X3D finally do merge in a meaningful
>fashion, it will be painful to work in namespaces where
>each one has a different way to specify coordinates.
Even for people merely converting from one to another, never mind grand
unification, this creates huge problems. SVG does get criticized on a
semi-regular basis for this. Dunno about X3D, but it'd be a huge black
mark for me. Maybe they don't care - "it's just a delivery format" -
but I spend too much time extracting information from delivery formats
to take that claim seriously.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
