On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 02:09:49PM -0500, Meng Weng Wong asserted:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 01:53:07PM -0500, George Schlossnagle wrote:
| IMHO 'human-readable' data formats are over-rated when their
| consumers are all automated processes.
That's actually an argument in favour of XML.
It's easier for machines to read, because we already have XML libraries
and a toolkit.
SPF is easier for humans to write but at the end of the day most people
are still using a wizard.
SPF XML
easy for lay people to write slightly harder for lay people to writep
easy for XML nerds to write very easy for XML nerds to write
new parsers have to be written parsers kind of already written
less extensible theoretically more extensible
thoughts?
I remember marvelling at my shiney new Maxtor 6043 40 Meg drive. Golly! I
could store a whole lot of stuff on that. Surely more than I would ever need.
And at US$575, it had better store enough for a while.
Well, I was not forward thinking enough back then.
Perhaps you could include the provision for an XML record in the specification
with a recommendation that the existing method be used until a business case
drives the change. With the speed of consensus being what it is, you are right
to consider the future needs. I just don't see them yet. Much like I didn't
see SPF before you mentioned it.
--
Bob Greene
Public key available at
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xC9C7841C
Or, you can just pull my finger
-------
Sender Permitted From: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/draft-mengwong-spf-02.9.4.txt
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname(_at_)©#«Mo\¯HÝÜîU;±¤Ö¤Íµø?¡