[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Sunday 19 January 2003 17:52, Mike Plusch wrote:
> Out of the 50 email messages about
> ConciseXML, almost all of the comments
> have been of the sort:
> "but ConciseXML is not XML 1.0!".
>
> Although this is a true statement,
> how about any comments on the two
> key problems that ConciseXML fixes that
> are reoccuring issues across the industry.
>
> 1. XML 1.0 is verbose and is not suitable
> for many applications that people would
> like to use it for. People invent new
> syntax all the time to avoid XML 1.0.
> For example, XPATH, XQuery, string
> encodings, CSV data, etc.
>
> 2. There is not a single way in XML 1.0 to
> represent data fields that have a key and value
> where the key can be any type and the value
> can be any type.
Use elements for everything and have no distinction between
properties-of-this-object and nested-object :-)
Or don't nest objects, treat it like an address space:
<objectPool root="SAKFDLSFDAN">
<object id="SAKFDLSFDAN" type="Person">
<field name="Name" type="String" value="Alaric Snell" />
<field name="FaveFood" type="Food" value="SP3MDFNDFE" />
</object>
<object id="SP3MDFNDFE" type="Food">
....
</object>
</objectPool>
It's a bit messy, but it works, it enforces the semantic distinctions, and it
also rather neatly allows for an arbitrary (cyclic!) graph of
interconnections rather than hierarchial single-ownership.
Sadly, it's not very nice to look at in XML; I prefer the s-expression
approach myself *wicked grin* :-)
(Person
Name: "Alaric Snell"
FaveFood: (Food ...))
ABS
--
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
- ARP
|
