• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Subject: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:16:14 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206889@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE07206889@h...>
• User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913)

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> A radical suggestion:  maybe what they really need are binaries 
> and the creation of a binary specification can provide a subset 
> of what is expressible in XML.  They aren't the same, just that 
> it might be easier to create a subset outside XML The Spec.

I've been hearing that a lot recently. If it's true, maybe we should 
keep it hush-hush for a while ;)

> Ok.  Any parties interested in posting their favorite five 
> bad problems with XML in order here?  I wonder what the 
> consensus is on the top two.  (XML, not XML apps like 
> XSD.)

   1) DTDs
   2) other legacy cruft
   3) DTDs
   4) more legacy cruft you always forget is there
   5) DTDs

-- 
Robin Berjon

• References:
  • RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by Date: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Previous by thread: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread