Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
clbullar@i... (Bullard, Claude L (Len)) writes: >Perhaps, but it seems that we as XML application language >designers and members of working groups should take on >the challenge to reuse as much pre-existing productions >as make sense to the particular language. If it's a wrapper format, fine. Call it a wrapper format. Don't sell it as a new XML format. This spec appears to be creating a whole new set of semi-random numbers and letters, and calling it XML. >Lists of numbers are common, BTW. X3D has them too. >But when SVG and X3D finally do merge in a meaningful >fashion, it will be painful to work in namespaces where >each one has a different way to specify coordinates. Even for people merely converting from one to another, never mind grand unification, this creates huge problems. SVG does get criticized on a semi-regular basis for this. Dunno about X3D, but it'd be a huge black mark for me. Maybe they don't care - "it's just a delivery format" - but I spend too much time extracting information from delivery formats to take that claim seriously. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
