• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 17:17:22 +0100
• Cc: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>, xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D104F548E9@R...>
• References: <830178CE7378FC40BC6F1DDADCFDD1D104F548E9@R...>
• Reply-to: davep@d...

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 13:15 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> XML is sub-optimal for almost every task we use it for. 
> 
> It is suboptimal as a document format for the Web. It is suboptimal as a
> wire format for distributed computing. It is suboptimal as a program
> configuration file format. It is suboptimal as a syntax for programming
> languages. It is suboptimal as an business document format. 
> 
> However it is "good enough" at being all these things that we put up
> with it. Anyone can come up with a better format for their specific
> scenario. So what? 

I think that sums it up.
For a specific we can find 'better' solutions.
For a significant majority it's good enough, or better.

Nicely put Dare.

(We'll wait for Lens response :-)

-- 
Regards, 

Dave Pawson
XSLT + Docbook FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• References:
  • RE: Why XML for Messaging?
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: JAXB SecurtiyException with NamespaceContext
• Next by Date: Validation of XUpdate
• Previous by thread: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Next by thread: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread