[ 30 Dec 02 16:57, Jasen Betts wrote to Scott Little ]

 SL>> I'm not "stubbornly championing one particular form" - I simply
 JB> Are you prepared to consider any other forms?

HRN is still an option, and I agree there are valid reasons to use it. 
It's just that I haven't seen them argued - people have come up with all
sorts of nonsensical paranoid excuses of why XML is bad instead.

 JB> I'd have hoped for some improvement atleast :)

Well, for one, SLF segments that originated from XML (by *Cs using XML
processors) will obey the rules coded into the conversion algorithm.  Plus,
*Cs may opt to convert incoming SLF to XML, merge in their local segment,
then convert back to SLF (if their uplink is SLF-only), rather than run an
SLF processor in parallel (by converting their XML to SLF and injecting it
into the SLF processor).

Done at a high level, these conversions will likely clean up much of the
nodelisted data, perhaps at the cost of pissing some lower *Cs off who are
currently doing their own thing.


-- Scott Little  [fidonet#3:712/848 / sysgod{at}sysgod.org]

--- FMail/Win32 1.60+