Re: Why XML for Messaging?
Claude L "Len" Bullard top-posted: > Good enough. Can I get that without the XML syntax? I have no idea what "that" you're talking about, but assuming that by "that" you mean this: > [Joe English] >> XML's basic building blocks of elements, attributes, >> and text are flexible enough to accomodate a much >> broader range of data. Only a few things fit in a >> regular table, but a lot of things can fit in a tree. then sure: you can use S-expressions. As any Lisp fan will tell you, S-expressions can do everything that XML can do, can do it better, and moreover did it first 40 years ago. (FWIW I don't fully believe that myself, but that's what all the Lisp fans say. Certainly S-exprs and the lowly CONS cell are just as good a foundation as anything XML has to offer, and S-expression syntax has been used in this problem domain before. Dunno why the idea hasn't gained as much traction as XML has.) But I get the impression that you're looking for something *binary*, 'cause, well, everyone knows that *binary* is *faster*. I don't believe that either, but if that's what you want, take your pick: ASN.1 BER/DER/PER/*ER, ONC XDR, COM, DCOM, any number of CORBA implementations, or an even greater number of ad-hoc all-purpose binary serialization formats. Or invent your own; everyone else does. (The reason why none of these has gained as much traction as XML is left as a (one-star) exercise to the reader. Multiple answers accepted.) OTOH, if you buy the premise that elements, attributes, and text are in some way the "right" set of building blocks -- well, then why do you want that without the XML syntax? That's like saying you want S-expressions except without all the parentheses. --Joe English jenglish@f...
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