• To: "'Hunsberger, Peter'" <Peter.Hunsberger@S...>,"'Jonathan Robie'" <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Subject: RE: Ted Nelson's "XML is Evil"
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:46:06 +0100
• Cc: "'Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)'" <len.bullard@i...>,"'Eric van der Vlist'" <vdv@d...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1E0CC447E59C974CA5C7160D2A2854EC02FECEE5@S...>
• Thread-index: AcSloFrfhmaoAXB2SeikoGulxrHX8AAAeobAAAJx+jA=

> 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.  

Mainly because of design goals 4 and 6, which few other candidate formats
have either stated, or achieved:

4: it shall be easy to write programs which process XML documents

6: XML documents should be human legible and reasonably clear

These two goals (and XML's success in achieving them) enable the data to
outlive the current generation of software used to process it.

Admittedly, they do require the designers of the particular vocabulary to
share the same philosophy.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Ted Nelson's "XML is Evil"
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>

• 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