• From: Steve Schafer <pandeng@t...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 14:36:31 -0600

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? 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.

-Steve Schafer

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Frontline report from the Desperate Fgrep Hacker
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>

• References:
  • Re: Frontline report from the Desperate Fgrep Hacker
    • From: Sean McGrath <digitome@i...>
  • Re: Frontline report from the Desperate Fgrep Hacker
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@l...>

• Prev by Date: xml diff
• Next by Date: RE: XML Schemas: Needs Marketing?
• 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