• To: "Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>
• Subject: RE: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 09:22:31 -0800
• Cc: "Uche Ogbuji" <uche.ogbuji@f...>,"Mike Champion" <mc@x...>,<elharo@m...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcLK3swzAQaoyDIbQaCYyz89iojfqwAAELSP
• Thread-topic: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services

I agree with you about #1. In fact, whenever I make these comments I actually assume that Unicode support is a given and don't think of it as something that should be highlighted. Also it is cumbersome to write "S-expressions with better unicode support" instead of plain old S-expressions (or CSV). :) 
 

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...] 
	Sent: Sun 2/2/2003 9:16 AM 
	To: Dare Obasanjo 
	Cc: Uche Ogbuji; Mike Champion; elharo@m...; xml-dev@l... 
	Subject: Re:  Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
	
	

	Dare Obasanjo wrote:
	>  <personal-opinion> If most of our users could get the following with CSV or S-expressions (I am such a broken record) I'm not sure they'd stick with XML besides the fact that it has been overhyped to death. I think this list of features would include
	
	You left out two things that I think have been big in XML's catching on:
	
	1. Clean internationalization (Larry Wall: "An XML document knows what
	encoding it's in.")
	2. Deterministic error handling.
	
	I think the importance of #1 is still widely underestimated.  And I
	think #1 and #2 together are the things that really set XML apart from
	S-expressions and ASN.1 and the other credible competition.  -Tim
	
	

• Prev by Date: RE: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• Next by Date: Re: SML (was Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services)
• Previous by thread: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Next by thread: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread