Re: [dev] Re: Why HTTP is so bad?

From: Chris Down <chris_AT_regentmarkets.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 11:09:38 +0800

On 24 May 2013 11:03, Sam Watkins <sam_AT_nipl.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 06:44:13PM -0600, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
>> HTML started out as SGML, which is even less sane than XML.
>
> It's a lot more sane than binary word / wordperfect documents and such.
> What do you suggest is better than HTML? troff? TeX? docbook? markdown?
> And what should replace HTTP? 9p? ftp? gopher?

If you compare to binary formats as a starter, you're gonna have a bad
time (for the record, I think newer word versions use DEFLATE'd zips
containing XML instead... shudder.

> There are all sorts of bogosities with HTTP and HTML, but it's possible
> to write nice simple clean well-formed HTML, and send nice simple clean
> HTTP requests, ignoring most of the suckful bits.

The point is that you shouldn't *have* to consciously ignore or
tolerate them. We can also argue that if you are ignorant of how it
works, UPnP is fantastic. That doesn't make it so.
Received on Fri May 24 2013 - 05:09:38 CEST