Excuse me, if somebody already
pointed this to you.
The XML document below explicitly
expresses well-formed (and hopefully valid) response to a call (methodResponse
element). It specifically shows that there is one result (param element) and it
is of type double, not integer (double element). It also shows that in some
situations i might expect more than one result (params element).
Of course, it might turn
out that it was returned in XML structure my program does not understand.
However, it still has all this additional context information.
The ConciseXML form you
show is expressing... umh, for the lack of better word - something. It might be
an integer, double, error code, request for authentication, the name of my dog
or just plain garbage that came over the transport.
The example you choose is
definitely not good. You need to make better example how ConciseXML will
represent all the information represented by an XML 1.0 document with less
wordiness.
Franci
.
Disclaimer: The text of
this message represents the author’s personal opinion and in no way should
be considered as official position of author’s employer.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, 20 January 2003 05:48
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?
