• To: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>
• Subject: Re: Ted Nelson's "XML is Evil"
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:46:31 -0400
• Cc: Michael Kay <michael.h.kay@n...>, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>,Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <1E0CC447E59C974CA5C7160D2A2854EC02FECEE5@S...>
• References: <1E0CC447E59C974CA5C7160D2A2854EC02FECEE5@S...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)

Hunsberger, Peter wrote:
> 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...

But I don't need a parser to read element and attribute names, and see 
how things nest.

For archival purposes, of course, the simpler the markup, the better.

Jonathan

• References:
  • RE: Ted Nelson's "XML is Evil"
    • From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Ted Nelson's "XML is Evil"
• Next by Date: RE: Ted Nelson's "XML is Evil"
• Previous by thread: RE: Ted Nelson's "XML is Evil"
• Next by thread: RE: Ted Nelson's "XML is Evil"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread