[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>
> mplusch@clearmethods.com wrote:
> >Isn't there anyone out there who thinks it
> >is ridiculous to have a syntax that uses
> >126 characters to express an integer?
>
>
> Yes, the person who made this particular bit of markup probably
> shouldn't have.
I don't want to get into this troll-war, but I strongly disgree here. Who are
you to say that they shouldn't have marked it up that way? What do you know
of the context involved? If I have an XML schema for employees in a company,
and in one of the companies represented in such a document there is only one
employee, it might be expressed as:
<org><employees><employee id="1"><name>Uche Ogbuji</name></employee>
</employees></org>
Someone, coming across this sole document might say "what the hell? why didn't
they just simplify to "<name>Uche Ogbuji</name>"?
But they would be missing the whole context that the document is meant to
conform to a schema used in more general situations, and by conforming to that
schema, even though it is more complex, it allows for general processing by
tools for that schema.
So a character count, is, IMHO, the sort of methodology for criticizing XML
that a troll would take up. And I have a lot of difficulty seeing Mike Plisch
as anything other.
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Python Generators + DOM - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/01/08/py-xml.html
4Suite Repository Features - https://www6.software.ibm.com/reg/devworks/dw-x4su
ite5-i/
XML class warfare - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6965
MusicBrainz metadata - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-thi
nk14.html
|
