[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > 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.
|
