• From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: Sat, 12 Feb 100 13:22:06 -0500 (EST)

Steve Schafer scripsit:
> 
> On Fri, 11 Feb 100 07:45:58 -0500 (EST), you wrote:
> 
> >Because the documents were 100% generated by a single
> >program whose behavior was entirely predictable.
> 
> But isn't that rather beside the point?

"The" point?  My point was that using XML as a data representation
does not dictate a processing model.

> For a given application, we
> can of course limit ourselves to a particular subset of XML or some
> other notation, and then write code that reads and processes only that
> subset. That doesn't get us any closer to answering the question of
> whether or not XML (or whatever) is suitable as a general-purpose
> notation for data abstraction.

"General purpose" means that something can satisfy many purposes
(clearly true), not every possible purpose (how can anything do that?).

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan@c...
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Frontline report from the Desperate Fgrep Hacker
    • From: Len Bullard <cbullard@h...>

• References:
  • Re: Frontline report from the Desperate Fgrep Hacker
    • From: Steve Schafer <pandeng@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The Power of Groves: The VRML View
• Next by Date: Re: The Power of Groves
• Previous by thread: Re: Frontline report from the Desperate Fgrep Hacker
• Next by thread: Re: Frontline report from the Desperate Fgrep Hacker
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread