[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Sean McGrath wrote:
>> 1) The lack of sane, simple roundtrippability. I read in some XML, I
>> write it straight back out again. I loose stuff on the way. R u nuts?
>> And you call this a machine processible data format:-)
>
> In my experience if you really care about anything you lose (CDATA
> sections, entity references vs. characters, etc.), that's a serious code
> smell that indicates a major flaw in the stuff. Yeah, the stuff that
> comes out may not be as nicely formatted for humans reading it with more
> or a text editor, but often even that can be fixed with appropriate
> options on the serializer.
Well letting Sean's C14Nish needs on the side, the "humans reading it"
part is of some importance ain't it? :) Like you I find RNG much easier
to read than RNC. However, on a recent ongoing project I am co-editing a
fairly large and modularized RNG with other people, one of whom is using
a so-called "XML editor". After his edit passes, the output looks a lot
more like a DB dump than anything remotely human usable. Sure it's a
tool problem, but most of the current XML tools are pretty bad at
supporting XML's textuality properly.
--
Robin Berjon
|
