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 The nodelist cannot be significantly altered or superseded while we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)

.