Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
David Carver wrote: > Michael, I would have to disagree with this. EDI had/has cryptic > characters and if you are an end user trying to figure out why a message > isn't coming in as you expect, unless you know the spec inside and out > for the message being sent, it is very time consuming trying to debug > what is wrong. The same thing hold's true for XML files and elements and > attribute names. A human eventually has to look at it at some point > during the development process. Even programmers, and I know many that > prefer something they can read and decipher, as opposed to the other > formats that require more intiment knowledge of the spec (i.e. > <2A3></2A3> what does that actually mean?? as opposed to > <PurchaseOrderID></PurchaseOrderID>). I absolutely agree, but Michael's point may be that when dealing with XML names we don't require absolute fidelity. It's OK to use an underscore instead of a space or a apostrophe, and make various other changes as long as the intent is still reasonably clear. In markup and/or code no one gets too bent out of shape if they see resume where one would expect resumé. They're just happy it's not rsm or, worse yet, 2A3. :-) -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@m... Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
