Adam Churvis wrote: > > That is a nice _theory_, but it is only that: a theory. It isn't a simple > matter of a change in syntax; there are completely different techniques > available in some very popular products. To disregard these very valuable > and popular techniques is to say, "You guys shouldn't have spent the > millions in R&D to provide these capabilities in your product because you > can't do the same thing with every other product." Such is to thwart > innovation, which by its very nature must break the chains of standards in > order to evolve and grow.
No, it is to say: "if you want to implement an entirely new and innovative technology, provide sufficient documentation so people can understand how it works, because *we* are not going to document *your* idiosyncracies". > So how about three examples of each major principle involved in implementing > i18n via XML techniques: > > 1) A generic, standards-only-based technique, > > 2) A technique that leverages MS SQL Server's unique XML handling > capabilities, if that technique is significantly different from and/or has > platform-specific advantages over the other two techniques, > > and > > 3) A technique that leverages the unique XML handling capabilities of Oracle > 9iR2, if that technique is significantly different from and/or has > platform-specific advantages over the other two techniques. > How does this sound to you? Workable for all? Very workable. But if the resources only allow for 1 example, make sure it is number 1. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
