Programming language

Hui Zhou zhouhui at
Sat Feb 5 13:15:23 PST 2005

On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 08:32:53PM +0000, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>Hui Zhou wrote:
>>as long as it works and clean, why would "we" care for the standard?
>That sounds so like something a Microsoft employee would write it's 
>scary!  The whole point of using a standard is precisely because it *is* 

What is standard good for? Good for exchange between a wide 
applications. To maintain this ability, applications actually 
sacrifice for it. For many area, this sacrifice is worth it. 

>Why bother using it if we're going to do so in a non-standard 
>manner, hence break with everyone's reasonable expectations and 
>assumptions of how our tool will act?  

I thought everyone's expectations were the usability of alfs, not the 
demanding of profile writen in XML with specific complexity  and 
internal communication protocol.

>I'm beginning to think you're 
>only writing these comments to hinder progress.  As such, as from now, 
>I'm going to no longer waste my time on such meaningless conversation.

If you think so, you should not further hinder progress on intention. 
I confess 50% unintentional guilty. 
>We've already given you the reasons why we think it remains sensible to 
>stick with XML, I don't recall you ever rebutting those arguments, 

You feel it sensible is your feeling. How would I rebut that? I don't 
really care wheter you stick with XML or not. I only interested in 
why you don't see what I see. Anyway, I slowly getting that why now.

>Note that moving to something 
>other than XML will require 1) Defining a new format 2) Converting 
>existing profiles to that new format 3) Profile authors will have to 
>learn the new format 4) Implementing a parser, validator and processor 
>for it. 

I think I understand now. It 1) took huge effort of a committee 
(pronounce that!) to define XML (write that huge spec), especially 
think that they need think for countless usages and do all kinds of 
compensations; 2) people are actually *hand* traslating xml documents 
3) Profile authors have spent huge effort to learn the old format; 4) 
It took DV years to implement libxml2 so he can finally very proudly 
claim his library is w3c compliant!

> As such, whatever format you propose better have some *really* 
>strong arguments in favour of it to justify that level of work.

The strong argument I have is: with a possible simple approach, all 
those difficulties or seemingly huge tasks just remain simple. 

Hui Zhou

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list