--On 31 July 2011 19:34:47 +0200 Goswin von Brederlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> Strike 1. > > XML is basically nothing more than a tokenizer. You then still need to > define a grammar to make sense out of the data contained in the xml. > So all you did so far is add an obscuring encoding. I know what XML is. Actually you do not need to define a full grammar, (in XML terms an xsd / schema / whatever). It's perfectly possible to have an extensible xml format without a schema, and that's particularly useful if you want to add (e.g.) vendor specific bits. > Strike 2. > > Last the options would be a back and forth with queries and replies. A > negotiation of capabilities and so on. XML does nothing for this. Indeed it does not, and I was not suggesting it was a complete solution. I don't think I've seen any complete solutions. > Strike 3. You're out. "Send code" -- Alex Bligh ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Got Input? Slashdot Needs You. Take our quick survey online. Come on, we don't ask for help often. Plus, you'll get a chance to win $100 to spend on ThinkGeek. http://p.sf.net/sfu/slashdot-survey _______________________________________________ Nbd-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
