Lists Home |
Date Index |
The fact that you think you've expressed the same thing is the root of
your misconception. From the XML document I can see that the document
was generated as a response to a method call, that methods may have one
or more params, that this method has returned only one, that this method
returned a double, and that this particular call resulted in a return of
the value 28657.
In your format, I get five meaningless symbols.
Even in your particularly silly example, I see reasons for preferring
XML. Want to try again?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Plusch [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:48 PM
> To: xml-dev
> 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:
> The first XML document shown is the following:
> In ConciseXML, it becomes the following:
> 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>