Subj : XML
To : Jan Vermeulen
From : Bill Birrell
Date : Sat Dec 21 2002 11:47 pm
Tag, Mijnheer!
> You set a frame that we should use. Only they tell
> us that there is a problem when working towards XML
> and not start from it.
> To me it looks like going from London to Penzance
> via Edinburg.
OK, Jan. I made what seemed to me a sensible suggestion that could lead to
a workable compromise. If what I said is not useful, then "let him who knows
best speak".
I would find it useful if someone would explain to me why XML
is needed now after more than a decade running successfully without it. Also
the explanation should be in layman's terms so that everybody, including me,
can understand it.
(The idiom is to "go to Land's End via John O' Groats", if it is of any use
to you.)
I do not understand why there would be a problem with a utility that
produces an XML list from the nodelist. The nodelist cannot be significantly
altered or superseded while we are still using the term FidoNet anyway. To do
so would just cut off everyone who depends on the nodelist as it is.
The list produced by the utility would be in XML already. Then they are not
working towards XML but starting from it. It sounds to me as if people are
making difficulties that do not really exist, but perhaps my thinking is too
lateral in this matter.
