>> Great! Yet another unnecessary, >> overcomplicated, incompatible format
> It is only incompatible in part because > companies refuse to adopt open standards, > preferring to lock your wallet into their > solution.
The companies and their proprietary formats have been around a lot longer than the alleged "standard". Some of the companies (e.g., Garmin) have already adopted XML-based formats. I have encountered literally dozens of formats for representing geospatial information, and I suspect that there are hundreds or thousands extant. It's unclear why a new, complicated, and incompatible format should be promulgated, when one of the old formats would be adequate, and at least compatible with *something*. Well, other than the usual reasons of personal vanity, "not invented here", and the failure of the old formats to meet someone's dogma.
> Do you even know how often you use XML?
Yes. Whenever there's data stored in an inefficient, needlessly-complex, expensive-and- slow-to-parse manner, I suspect XML, and I'm usually right. :-)
> Some of us do find this quite useful.
> if you care, see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
I understand the concept of "Open Source" but it's not particularly relevant to this discussion. There are numerous older formats that were well documented and not encumbered by intellectual property restrictions.
>> But I guess when your only tool is a Howitzer, >> you use it, even when you just need to drive a >> nail.
> And I guess you don't own a car because you can > walk, Don't use a GPSr because a map and compass > work, and don't use a computer when pen and > paper work so well.
I guess you miss the point entirely. I use my car when it makes sense. If I just need to go across the street for a jug of milk, I do walk. Sometimes a pen and a Post-It note are the perfect tools for the job.