• From: Arjun Ray <arjun.ray@v...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:20:39 -0500

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:58:03 +0000, Peter Flynn <peter@s...>
wrote:

| We have just not been very good about making that clear; in my field, 
| largely because programmers glaze over when you talk about XML and 
| documents.

Mainly because they had already been sold on the idea that XML was a
serialization format.  The problem was to unsell them, and that would
have taken uncommon persuasion skills.

| On the other hand, I have documents exactly like this, with a markup
| payload of 500% of the document text and more, precisely because it adds
| value to the documents for their users far exceeding any minor
| inconveniences of pointy brackets getting in the way. 

Yes, but compare that to the overhead in the example presented here:

http://blog.codinghorror.com/xml-the-angle-bracket-tax/

where the "value added", such as it could be, is risibly minimal. (For
a very good reason: the base information payload isn't a "document"
except by definitional legerdemain only.)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Protocol Buffers - Why not use XML
    • From: Hans-Juergen Rennau <hrennau@y...>

• References:
  • Protocol Buffers - Why not use XML
    • From: Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@g...>
  • Re: Protocol Buffers - Why not use XML
    • From: Arjun Ray <arjun.ray@v...>
  • Re: Protocol Buffers - Why not use XML
    • From: Peter Flynn <peter@s...>