 |
 |
May I just add here that of all the things we've talked about in these threads, perhaps the only thing that will still be in use a hundred years from now will be Unicode. إن شاء الله On Apr 29, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Alexander Johannesen wrote: > However, I'd like to add here that I happen to love XML, even from an > integration perspective, but maybe that stems from understanding all > those tedious bits no one really cares about about it, like id(s) and > refid(s) (and all the indexing goodness that comes from it), canonical > datasets, character sets and Unicode, all that schema craziness > (including Schematron and RelaxNG), XPath and XQuery (and all the > sub-standards), XSLT and so on. I love it all, and not because of the > generic simplicity itself (simple in the default mode of operation, I > might add), but because of a) modeling advantages, b) > cross-environment language and schema support, and c) ease of > creation. (I don't like how easy well-formedness breaks, though. That > sucks) Eric Hellman President, Gluejar, Inc. 41 Watchung Plaza, #132 Montclair, NJ 07042 USA [log in to unmask] http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/