[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean.mcgrath@propylon.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 3:15 PM
> To: Adam Turoff
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>
> They unfortunately, have
> plenty of solid ground to stand on these days when it comes
> to complexity and not-for-human-consumption arguments these
> days. Its now trendy to produce XML that is about as human
> readable as The Laguna Copperplate Inscription[1].
>
> This is the inevitable result of the diminution in
> XML-as-text that comes with infoset fixation I'm afraid.
From XML in 10 Points (http://www.w3.org/XML/1999/XML-in-10-points)
"3. XML is text, but isn't meant to be read
Programs that produce spreadsheets, address books, and other structured
data often store that data on disk, using either a binary or text
format. One advantage of a text format is that it allows people, if
necessary, to look at the data without the program that produced it; in
a pinch, you can read a text format with your favorite text editor. Text
formats also allow developers to more easily debug applications. Like
HTML, XML files are text files that people shouldn't have to read, but
may when the need arises. Less like HTML, the rules for XML files are
strict. A forgotten tag, or an attribute without quotes makes an XML
file unusable, while in HTML such practice is tolerated and is often
explicitly allowed. The official XML specification forbids applications
from trying to second-guess the creator of a broken XML file; if the
file is broken, an application has to stop right there and report an
error."
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
If at first you don't succeed, imitate.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
|
