Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 10:27 PM, Paul Prescod wrote:
>> The same way you'd do it with XML, or TSV, or anything! XML doesn't
>> make interchange any easier. You still need to agree what XML
>> structure to use, or what column headings to use, or whatever.
> Really? Here's (one way) I would do it in XML:
> <!ELEMENT purchaseOrder (buyer, seller, ...)>
> This is both human readable and computer processable. There are a
> variety of similar techniques. Now what's the equivalent for TSV,
> PLists, etc.?
Yeah, but (almost) nobody can understand them, you still have to write
a bunch of custom code to proceess them. I'd quit bringing up the
schema thing. I don't see it used much at all (reading the list of
"types" in schema I can see why). And what's the benefit of having the
schema machine readable? Validation? It only provides syntactic
validation. You still need to do your own semantic validation.
Schema value == 0.
>> Not really! Quite a few 'standard' bitmap file formats are just dumps
>> of the memory structures used by the apps that first produced them -
>> and they're all roughly the same: header, palette, bitmap data.
> I'm talking about vector graphics programs. You're talking about
> bitmap apps.
Its still a dump of internal data. BTW, I see some ballyhooage about
MS using XML for Office. You know what MSXML looks like?
Its just marked up chunks of base 64 binary. XML isn't magic and
doesn't guarantee interop. In fact, I'm quite sure MSXML will still
prevent it some how.
>> They clearly do! The plists have been in use on macs for how long,
>> Mr. Blanchard? :-)
> And today they are XML. ;)
Or not. The preference is not. And I showed you the pointlessness of
XMLizing them. They did the XML to please the zealots.
> I'll ask again: what's the schema language for plists?
English. Its all you need.