Re: [Nbd] Back to the options parsing debate

[Alex Bligh <alex@...872...>]

--On 31 July 2011 19:34:47 +0200 Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@...186...> 
wrote:

> Strike 1.
>
> XML is basically nothing more than a tokenizer. You then still need to
> define a grammar to make sense out of the data contained in the xml.
> So all you did so far is add an obscuring encoding.

I know what XML is. Actually you do not need to define a full grammar,
(in XML terms an xsd / schema / whatever). It's perfectly possible
to have an extensible xml format without a schema, and that's
particularly useful if you want to add (e.g.) vendor specific bits.

> Strike 2.
>
> Last the options would be a back and forth with queries and replies. A
> negotiation of capabilities and so on. XML does nothing for this.

Indeed it does not, and I was not suggesting it was a complete solution.
I don't think I've seen any complete solutions.

> Strike 3. You're out.

"Send code"

--
Alex Bligh