• To: "'davep@d...'" <davep@d...>, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Why XML for Messaging?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:21:10 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

I don't disagree.

However, you will find where the better is developed, 
the IP profits are reaped.  Nothing has changed.

len


From: Dave Pawson [mailto:davep@d...]

> 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 :-)

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