[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Your example is ridiculous.
Seriously, I have nothing against your markup langauge or anyone who wants to cook up their own markup scheme but have issues with people who post bogus aspersions about a technology simply to push an agenda. XML works for a lot of things and it sucks for others. This is a fact of life for ANY technology. However, of the numerous failings of XML you either pick the most trivial or make up nonexistent ones.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Plusch [mailto:mplusch@clearmethods.com]
Sent: Sun 1/19/2003 10:48 AM
To: xml-dev
Cc:
Subject: [xml-dev] XML and ConciseXML
In case folks think I'm making this stuff up, I just got
an email from the InformIT newsletter that reaches about
1 million developers.
The featured article is called:
"Processing XML with Java: Reading XML"
"Reading an XML document is a complicated, error-prone operation.
Elliotte Rusty Harold discusses how to use an XML parser to read the
document for you."
Here's the URL:
http://www.informit.com/content/index.asp?product_id={30915BCB-25BD-40
89-A4BF-244D25BC7301}&011903
The first XML document shown is the following:
<methodResponse>
<params>
<param>
<value><double>28657</double></value>
</param>
</params>
</methodResponse>
In ConciseXML, it becomes the following:
28657
Both forms are expressing the same thing, an
integer returned from a method call.
XML 1.0 took: 126 characters.
ConciseXML took: 5 characters.
Isn't there anyone out there who thinks it
is ridiculous to have a syntax that uses
126 characters to express an integer?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
