Subj : XML
To : Bill Birrell
From : Scott Little
Date : Mon Dec 23 2002 09:41 am
[ 21 Dec 02 23:47, Bill Birrell wrote to Jan Vermeulen ]
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.
SLF doesn't scale.
Most mail a decade ago was via PSTN, and the handful that weren't were able to
handle 'manual' arrangements easily. IP is fast becoming the majority, and
SLF just can't handle the data.
BB> I do not understand why there would be a problem with a utility
BB> that produces an XML list from the nodelist.
Because it would be useless - it would contain the same data as SLF. The whole
point of a new format is to allow addition of MORE data, AND in a more
structured format so as to allow future expansion without kluges or abiguity.
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 The nodelist cannot be significantly altered or superseded while we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.
Extracting the subset of information that is supported by SLF from a superior
format is trivally easy. Nobody has ever suggested cutting off those that
depend on SLF.
BB> The list produced by the utility would be in XML already. Then
BB> they are not working towards XML but starting from it.
More or less. It's the only way it can work.
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.
There are a disturbing number of people worrying about the sky falling down as
well.
-- Scott Little [fidonet#3:712/848 /
[email protected]]
--- FMail/Win32 1.60+
* Origin: Cyberia: All your msgbase are belong to us! (3:712/848)
