XML does not have to be verbose in the
It _could_ be suitable for ALL applications.
It is desirable to have a common, standard
that can be used for ALL purposes.
How about changing the name to:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 1:24
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] ConciseXML
Don't ignore the fact that people are telling you that it's not
If you haven't figured it out yet, the fact that it's not XML 1.0
huge problem for people on this list and, more generally, for
everywhere working with XML. Drop the X and move on.
is verbose. XML is not suitable for many applications. If it's
suitable for your application, don't use it. How hard is that to
out? The verbosity of XML is a chief virtue and a chief vice
Technologies are like that sometimes.
People didn't invent
XPATH, XQuery, string encodings, CSV data, etc. to
avoid the verbosity of
Are you saying there is no way to represent key/value pairs in XML
too many ways to represent key/value pairs in XML? The
alternative is false and I don't see the problem with the
To summarize, I'm not convinced that the two things you want to
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003
Subject: [xml-dev] ConciseXML arguments
of the 50 email messages about
ConciseXML, almost all of the
have been of the sort:
"but ConciseXML is not XML
Although this is a true statement,
how about any comments on
key problems that ConciseXML fixes that
are reoccuring issues
across the industry.
1. XML 1.0 is verbose and is not suitable
many applications that people would
like to use it for. People invent
syntax all the time to avoid XML 1.0.
For example, XPATH, XQuery,
encodings, CSV data, etc.
2. There is not a single way in XML
represent data fields that have a key and value
where the key
can be any type and the value
can be any