Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hi Mark > > > > This is one of the hypes about XML, that I'd like to defuse. > > XML is not any more self-describing than CSV files. E.g. > > > > <99874987kjhk> > > <gnygngyasdada> > > What is this? > > </gnygngyasdada> > > </99874987kjhk> > > > > Case proved? > > No. I know from your snippet that <gnygngyasdada> is child of > <99874987kjhk>, and that it contains some character data. I > don't know what > it means, but I can write some code to parse it, so that > someone who does > know what it means can at least look at it. If we agree on the file being a XML file. > Big advance on > > 99874987kjhk,gnygngyasdada,What is this? Could be: "99874987kjhk", "gnygngyasdada" "","What is this?" > With a comma delimited (in its most generic sense) structure > I don't know > what is data, what is tag (if any), what relationship fields > have with each > other, or even what constitutes a record (I have had to write > code to handle > 1 record per line and multiple, fixed or variable lines per record). Unless you have the information that it is a CSV file, and that the first line is the CSV header (just as you need to know that it is a XML file.) What I am trying to say, is that the quote "XML is selfdescribing" is wrong and unproved. It should maybe read: "XML has, as e.g. also CSV files and other formatted files, support for adding field descriptors to the data. If this is used in a consistent and well-documented manner, it will support the understandability of the XML or CSV files." -Mike: Good point. I bet that the Excel XML file could be quite unreadable. JJ
|
