On Dec 09, 2005, at 02:27, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
Granted that learning a new grammar is easily than learning new
tools - but that's also a bit of an argument for saying that
programmers
today are lazy...
It's not laziness, it's cost analysis. Reducing the number of formats
is a
Of Leonard Rosenthol
Sent: 08 December 2005 23:14
To: svg-developers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [svg-developers] Why is being in XML better?
(was Re: Adobe/Macromedia)
We like xml because it is The Great Panacea. What else do we need?
I agree that XML is a wonderful thing...I
Message-
From: svg-developers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leonard Rosenthol
Sent: 08 December 2005 23:14
To: svg-developers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [svg-developers] Why is being in XML better?
(was Re: Adobe/Macromedia)
We like xml
Hi, Ayrton (Senna?)-
Thanks for an amusing and well-stated post. I have never before heard XML's
verbosity used as an argument for it's brevity. Well done. :)
Regards-
Doug
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.vectoreal.com ...for scalable solutions.
ayrton_senna_lives_ok wrote:
|
| --- In
On Dec 08, 2005, at 20:26, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
[The following statement is somewhat heretical on this mailing
list, but
that's never stopped me before ;)]
It's not heretical, a lot of people see XML as a checklist feature
and don't pause to consider the advantages.
Why does a
We like xml because it is The Great Panacea. What else do we need?
I agree that XML is a wonderful thing...I spend lots of time in XML
myself (and have for almost 10 years now).
I do not, however, consider it the great panacea. There are many
things for which it is NOT
Every time someone
introduces an extra XML language, all that I have to learn is what is
*specific* to that language, nothing else. With other formats, you
also have to pick up the tools, the quirks, the modes of publishing,
etc..
Granted that learning a new grammar is easily than
7 matches
Mail list logo
