[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?

• To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <len.bullard@i...>, xml dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
• From: Anil Philip <goodnewsforyou@y...>
• Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
• Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=DdiLHvsgcfVhjOuEVJwKP713aogTKoEPIW+pdWLcxiMun0j1U1BUOKhL8cgExnBSimZ1QsZzRHZsvS5G1LvCldnfwn8rwS/mrTaPz/Hm6MYqAAcwGBy1Rp5GLZwrW4CS5QuvLnYryebnQctyS7uhSYywdPnSyGzzwcgSOMHWfrY= ;
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE072073E3@h...>

Len,
Thanks for your post - 
> No free lunch at the semantic table. 
that is a pearl.
thanks,
Anil

--- "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<len.bullard@i...> wrote:

> Permathread # ?
> 
> It saves you from arguing about lex/syntax, and it
> has 
> a reasonably robust structure.  Past that, you 
> get into applications so YMMV.  There are some
> reserved 
> attributes and namespaces but for the sake of
> brevity, 
> I won't go there.
> 
> XML is not now nor has it ever been the ability to 
> blindly exchange information.  It IS sharing at the 
> primitive level of a parser but not names or types. 
> For that, you have to step up to the next layer 
> of description such as what a schema language
> provides, 
> and then you have to be sure you share that.
> 
> No free lunch at the semantic table.  XML doesn't
> care 
> so you have to.  It's better than delimited ASCII
> because 
> it has structure and relies on Unicode.
> 
> len
> 
> 
> From: Anil Philip [mailto:goodnewsforyou@y...]
> 
> I would agree that XML is human readable and that
> XML+HTML is probably better than HTML. However, I
> was
> wondering:
> When we used C, (I guess there's an entire
> generation
> that didnt need to learn it :)), one transferred
> data
> using structs.
> eg.
> /* from memory... */
> struct Foo {
> int i;
> char[] str;
> long j;
> };
> 
> The Sender and Receiver were tied into explicitly
> knowing about Foo's structure - and so were
> considered
> tightly coupled, a bad thing.
> 
> With XML, one is sending the description together
> with
> the data in a tagged text file. However, in most
> cases
> of data transfer, the code of both Sender and
> Receiver
> still has to know the structure of Foo especially
> when
> parsing the data file. So how is it more flexible or
> even better? (apart from endian stuff)
> thanks,
> Anil Philip
> 
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the
> subscription
> manager:
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com

• References:
  • RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
• Next by Date: RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
• Previous by thread: RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
• Next by thread: RE: basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread