Subj : XML
To : Scott Little
From : Jan Vermeulen
Date : Mon Dec 23 2002 01:33 pm
Quoting Scott Little on Mon 23 Dec 2002 9:41 to Bill Birrell:
BB>> I would find it useful if someone would explain to me why XML
BB>> is needed now after more than a decade running successfully without
BB>> it.
sl> SLF doesn't scale.
But ESLF (Extended SLF) will.
sl> Most mail a decade ago was via PSTN, and the handful that weren't
sl> were able to handle 'manual' arrangements easily. IP is fast
sl> becoming the majority, and SLF just can't handle the data.
SLF can, but is limited to one line of less than 147 characters. ESLF will
see to that.
BB>> I do not understand why there would be a problem with a utility
BB>> that produces an XML list from the nodelist.
sl> Because it would be useless - it would contain the same data as SLF.
It may upgrade to using the data from ESLF. If the developers will get
serious and give priority to serving the net.
sl> The whole point of a new format is to allow addition of MORE
sl> data, AND in a more structured format so as to allow future
sl> expansion without kluges or abiguity.
ESLF can do all that, on a need to have basis.
BB>> The nodelist cannot be significantly altered or superseded while we
BB>> are still using the term FidoNet anyway. To do so would just cut off
BB>> everyone who depends on the nodelist as it is.
sl> Extracting the subset of information that is supported by SLF from
sl> a superior format is trivally easy. Nobody has ever suggested
sl> cutting off those that depend on SLF.
ESLF will contain all data one ever would need; XML may extract whatever it
needs.
BB>> The list produced by the utility would be in XML already. Then
BB>> they are not working towards XML but starting from it.
sl> More or less. It's the only way it can work.
The problem seems to be that the XML developers do not see how they could
extract that data. As if string parsing would be a PITA (even BASIC could do
that in the early eighties...).
BB>> It sounds to me as if people are making difficulties that do not
BB>> really exist, but perhaps my thinking is too lateral in this matter.
sl> There are a disturbing number of people worrying about the sky
sl> falling down as well.
Which is by far less probable than losing a few legacy nodes in the
process. Most NCs and RCs will already have the experience on what apparent
futilities their rescue is needed.
-=<[ JV ]>=-
* Origin: The Poor Man's Workstation -- Wormerveer NL (2:280/100)
