• To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Subject: Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
• From: tblanchard@m...
• Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:36:31 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <002c01c27a32$8f964a60$fe193044@tbp1>

On Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 03:21  AM, Thomas B. Passin wrote:
>  One day you want to send an example of a mispelled
> word on purpose, but -whoops! - the object fixes it for you anyway.

I think you should stop using Microsoft products - its beginning to 
affect your brain. :-)

But seriously, I acknowledge the need for an object serialization 
format that works for interchange.  My current dismay arises at least 
partially from finding XML a poor fit for this function.  The DOM 
(which is arguably an object representation of XML's structure) doesn't 
look much like any kind of model I've ever used to represent 
information (basically ER or OO models - which are fairly similar).

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Warsare Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Warsare Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Specifying a Unicode subset
• Next by Date: Re: The Browser Wars are Dead! Long Live the Browser Wa rs!
• Previous by thread: Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Warsare Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
• Next by thread: Re: XML as "passive data" (Re: The Browser Warsare Dead! Long Live the Browser Wars!)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread