On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:18:44 -0600, "Gregory Hill"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Do you seriously think that XML is a suitable language to be used in the
> place of a relational database, or did you just want to argue for the
> sake of arguing?
There's no need to ascribe claims to me ("XML is a suitable language to
be
used in the place of a relational database") that I never made or
implied.
> 'Cause you just took a very minor part of my point,
> removed the context, and argued the semantics of it.
Your claim that putting data in XML was hardly a minor point; it was
central
to your argument that comparing table names and xml class names is dumb.
> Let me return the favor.
>
> > Could you replace all your "content" with zeros and still have it
> solve your problem? [If not, then it's data.]
>
> That's so confused, I don't know where to start. How could zeroing out
> your data solve any problem?
Are you always this touchy when someone points out that you're wrong?
-J
--
C++ is history repeated as tragedy. Java is history repeated as farce. --Scott
McKay
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
