[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread 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?
<data7>AB373947F879874983792283787AC5E</data7>
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.
|
