[RFC] SRS Section 1
zhouhui at wam.umd.edu
Tue Feb 1 20:47:43 PST 2005
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:08:36PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>Hui Zhou wrote:
>>On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:18:39PM -0700, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
>>>While other formats can also provide this, XML also has
>>>already-existing tools for validating that a document conforms to a
>>>given design, which is very valuable in a tool like this.
>As you've said several times, XML is full of bells and whistles. While
>we do not have to make use of all of these to utilize XML, it is nice to
>know that they're there in case we ever have need in the future. XML
>provides all that we need (and more) by default and we only need use
>what benefits us.
I guess it's different philosophy then.
Say you want to goto a park 5 minutes walk down your house. You can
walk there in 5 minutes, you also can spend 4 minute visit your uncle
and borrow his SUV and drive for 1 minutes as well as promising your
uncle maintain the suv during the period of your lease.
I choose walk.
You choose SUV.
>XML is flexible, it is (obviously) extensible, it is a full-featured
>option that we get tons of return on with a relatively small investment.
>Unless I see a well defined example of something that we could use that
>provides the same functionality (and extensibility!) with less overhead,
>XML is in. As far as I'm concerned, this Section of the SRS is ready to
>go, apart from the links to references and textual changes concerning
>the description of XML.
As I tried to express, even with XML, it can be extremely simple that
I can comeup with a parser overnight without dependency or it can be
complicated enought for me to spend weeks to study the w3c spec. Its
like it ranges from scooter to full size hummer. The hummer comes with
higher maintainence albeit brings extra whistles. My philosophy is to
stay simple and know what I need.
More information about the alfs-discuss