Brian Robson wrote: > They are good formats in that they are commonplace, but they are bad formats > in that they old-fashioned in structure and are not plain text. In this > regard HTML and XML and other markup languages are better, and there is no > doubt that plain formats are the way of the future. Clearly the GNU/Linux > world is leading in this respect.
The advantage of plain text XML/HTML/other markup is that it's readable but verbose and takes space. This isn't a problem in terms of hard disk space but is a prob if the XML file becomes large - then it takes time to load and write. A compressed option/standard for markup languages will hopefully emerge. Perhaps gzip on UNIXes and zip on MS Windows will be the common format for word processing docs. Thats still then an open and 'readable' format as you can uncompress it, read it and recompress it again. Mike Linux enthusiast, caver and interested in anything technical :-) UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER ======================================================================== This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. ======================================================================== -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
