Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...> writes: > > Hunsberger, Peter wrote: > > > Archive isn't an isolated capability. Archive implies > capability for > > usage. Usage implies a mix of concerns. Does placing a inscribed > > stone tablet in a air tight iron box meet the requirements > of archive > > if no one knows how to interpret the inscriptions on the > stone tablet > > at any point in time? > > Well, it worked great for the Rosetta Stone. Umm, you missed the point: at several points in time (presumably) the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone could be interpreted. But I suspect the point's too subtle.... > Give people a bunch of > labels, and they can often figure it out - even in languages > they don't > know, given enough time. > > I think the topic at hand is inline markup. How could omitting the > markup make it easier to understand the meaning and structure of the > contents of a file? That's a good topic, but I think just part of the thread. Personally, I was (at least at some point (no pun intended)) attacking the question of when to use XML. For me, even when addressing the question of archive, I see more value in XML as an interchange format than I do in a archive format. Not to say it's a bad archive format, just to say that I don't see why it stands the test of long term usability necessarily better than any other format. XML parsers may be just a curious artifact of the past in 20 years...
|
