On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:10:19PM -0600, Lux wrote:
[...]
> The statement that XML is XML is as true as saying XHTML Transitional
> === XHTML Strict. It is easier to work with XML than binary for sure,
> but when the XML doesn't make sense, or if it isn't using XML (a META
> language) to describe the content, then it's not using XML to solve a
> problem. It's using it for the sake of saying they're using it.
> Technology for technology's sake. That's why we have such a usability
> problem in this industry -- users aren't considered, instead we do
> whatever we want and whatever we tell them is cool, and we let
> marketing worry about making users believe it has relevance to them.
> No wonder software marketing is so heavily buzzword-laden.
Don't forget - "valid XML" can also be, oh, say, BASE64-encoded binary
data.
So, as you point out, saying something is "XML" is totally meaningless
if the data isn't otherwise readable... and in fact, it can be much
much less so than your example, and still be XML.
[...]
> The point is, Microsoft is not pro-developer, and I am very skeptical
> (without having read that article yet, so I'm not judging from that)
> that their XML output will be anything but a headache to work with. Of
> course, somebody out there will task themselves with the creation of a
> nice MSWordXML2DocBook.xsl, and we'll all benefit from that
> (duplication of effort is just plain wrong after all).
You've got it wrong. Microsoft is incredibly pro-developer, as long as
that developer is working with current Microsoft platforms.
Stray and ye shall be banished!
--
- Adam
-----
Adam Fields, Managing Partner, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Surgam, Inc. is a technology consulting firm with strong background in
delivering scalable and robust enterprise web and IT applications.
http://www.adamfields.com
--
http://cms-list.org/
trim your replies for good karma.
