[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> In the real world, XML documents, carry a lot more metadata and
> information than CSV documents do. In the real world, CSV documents
> are prone to data corruption in a way XML documents aren't. In the
> real world, it's easier for people to write and read XML documents
> than CSV documents. In the real world, it's easier for programmers to
> write code that deals correctly with XML than with CSV. In the real
> world, it's easier to detect the inevitable problems that do arise
> with any format with XML than with CSV. In the real world, XML wins.
Hmmf! I work with both in the real world, and I find:
1) Writing CSV code is easier than XML code (no DOM or anything, just
something like SAX; I write the CSV parser myself in less code than it
takes to interface with an XML parser)
2) Data corruption? XML parsers are *fragile*, CSV parsers can often cope
with erronious data in ways that XML parsers mustn't if they are to be
standards compliant!
ABS
--
Alaric B. Snell
http://www.alaric-snell.com/ http://RFC.net/ http://www.warhead.org.uk/
Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software
|
