• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:50:48 -0500
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.2.20011220204947.022a40b0@p...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20011220204947.022a40b0@p...>

On Thursday 20 December 2001 11:52 pm, Tim Bray wrote:
> Er, no.  Without prejudice to the larger issue of C0 code points,
> the historical fact is that XML 1.0 deliberately chose to force all
> information content of whatever kind into a textual representation
> based on the evidence that this pays off well in terms of
> interoperability.  No more, no less. -Tim

In "The Art of Programming" Ken Thomson/Rob Pike note that in general, a 
textual data format is better than binary because:

  a) it can be easily manipulated with common tools.
  b) it is easily handled by *humans*

Here they are talking about application data interchange. 

These were (some of) the principals used for XML, and I'm sure have 
contributed to it's success.

• References:
  • RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX,
• Next by Date: Re: Some comments on the 1.1 draft
• Previous by thread: RE: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
• Next by thread: Re: Why would MS want to make XML break on UNIX, Perl, Python, etc ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread