• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: PSVI formalization
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 16:02:00 -0700
• References: <DC1124C4368AA9438D9DEC34ECB6F162013EBB51@o...> <1020968914.984.2380.camel@l...> <3CDB7075.2089A08A@r...> <1021037339.984.2440.camel@l...>

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> But is XML the only portable way to exchange information?  I don't think
> so.  XML has demonstrated that portability is possible.  It has not
> demonstrated that XML is the path all portable information must follow.

Of course not, but lots of people are using it, and that makes it a
worthwhile choice. The point is not to choose the best way to exchange
information portably, but to choose a good enough way that is used
widely enough that information can actually be exchanged.

-- Ron

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: PSVI formalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: PSVI formalization
    • From: Matthew Gertner <matthew.gertner@s...>
  • RE: PSVI formalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: PSVI formalization
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: PSVI formalization
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• Next by Date: Re: PSVI formalization
• Previous by thread: Re: PSVI formalization
• Next by thread: Re: PSVI formalization
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread