>> XML is no magic bullet for instant portability...
> 
> Yup. Our company makes lots of XML files that only our company's 
> products intend to understand. Same for competitors and other vendors, 
> too. Gets real fun when you try to import someone else's XML. Yeah, it 
> parses perfectly, but you have no clue what the semantics of the file 
> should be.

Depending on how well the schema is designed, it might be quite easy to 
comprehend.

Or not...

 From what little I know, the M$ XML format uses things like bitmaps and 
so forth to represent things. [Because that's how their codebase worked 
before they ported it to XML, and it's simpler to leave it that way than 
use a truly "open" arrangement like, say, using attributes or tags or 
something...]

>> Now look at Vista. I'm anticipating the same story all over again. 
>> Right now, you'd be insane to use Vista. It's just too flaky, and it's 
>> too expensive to construct a machine that's sufficiently high-end to 
>> run it even moderately well. Maybe in another 10 years it'll be OK...
> 
> And yet, I run Vista (Home Premium, even!) on a rather moderate machine. 
>  2.6 P4, 200GB harddrive, and 2.5G ram. It runs rather smoothly, 
> actually. I didn't notice any considerable performance drop from WinXP 
> to Vista.

In which universe is a machine with a 200 GB HD and more than 1 GB of 
RAM considered "moderate"? That sounds pretty high-end to me...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message