[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: terra incognita
> > XML is just a Comma Separated Values > > on steroids. > > > > People do use Comma Separated Values for > > serialization and for import /export of everything, > > so I don't understand why can't we use XML as > > a serialization 'language'. > > You can but there are issues such as > > a.) XML is not as efficient as a serialization technology as other methods > especially over the network (although if use HTTP and gzip encoding this can > be improved) ... 'other methods' ... such as ? > b.) Using XML involves becoming conversant with a quarter to half a dozen > buzzword technologies that seem to confound the average programmer and even > leave experts unsure of their worth (from SOAP to namespaces to schemas and > more) So XML has buzzwords. How does it prevent me from using XML as a 'seralization language'? I think this is irrelevant. > c.) XML was originally designed to deal with text primarily and not binary > data, this shows itself from time to time when using XML as a data > serialization and is partly the cause for the intense discussion in the XML > 1.1 thread. So there is some thread in XML-dev mailing list. ( BTW, my oppinion is that 'XML is for text, so there should be no control characters involved' ) How does it prevent me from using XML as a 'serialization language'. I think this is irrelevant. I still think that serialization into brutal XML's subset is a nice, practical design. What I'm missing? Rgds.Paul.
|
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
|