Re: terra incognita
> > XML is just a Comma Separated Values > > on steroids. > > > > People do use Comma Separated Values for > > serialization and for import /export of everything, > > so I don't understand why can't we use XML as > > a serialization 'language'. > > You can but there are issues such as > > a.) XML is not as efficient as a serialization technology as other methods > especially over the network (although if use HTTP and gzip encoding this can > be improved) ... 'other methods' ... such as ? > b.) Using XML involves becoming conversant with a quarter to half a dozen > buzzword technologies that seem to confound the average programmer and even > leave experts unsure of their worth (from SOAP to namespaces to schemas and > more) So XML has buzzwords. How does it prevent me from using XML as a 'seralization language'? I think this is irrelevant. > c.) XML was originally designed to deal with text primarily and not binary > data, this shows itself from time to time when using XML as a data > serialization and is partly the cause for the intense discussion in the XML > 1.1 thread. So there is some thread in XML-dev mailing list. ( BTW, my oppinion is that 'XML is for text, so there should be no control characters involved' ) How does it prevent me from using XML as a 'serialization language'. I think this is irrelevant. I still think that serialization into brutal XML's subset is a nice, practical design. What I'm missing? Rgds.Paul.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format