Lists Home |
Date Index |
XML is just a Comma Separated Values
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'.
It is true that at first glance YAML looks
'better for serialization' than XML, because
'YAML has been designed for serialization',
Unfortunately, it is not that simple.
When making a decision about serialization,
many things should be taken into account.
For example, there is some subset of XML, which is
supported by almost any tool ( namespaces are
out of that subset ), so when investing into another
( perhaps better ) serialization format, one should
estimate the number of tools he would need to rewrite.
What makes XML bad for serialization? I know it is
not ideal, but I think it is good enough and when trying
to look at the big picture ( tools, scalability,
e t.c. ) to mee it looks better than any other
alternative. What's JNI ? Java Native Interface ?
As to YAML ... If YAML would get DOM,
XPath, XSLT, Schema, support from all the big
guys ( including MS ) , support from the press mafia
e t.c. - why not YAML?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Jelliffe" <email@example.com>
From: "Clark C . Evans" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> It is this domain, data serialization that I think XML
> is sub-optimal.
XML is not a data serialization language. It is a markup
language, where text (i.e. words and sentences) can be annotated.
People who have been sold XML as a data serialization language
should be aware that XML was not designed to allow round-tripping
of arbitrary strings. To send arbitrary strings, encode in a bin64
or adopt some more appropriate technology (JNI, YAML, etc).
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