[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
David,
> > The fact is that in most medium sized enterprises, XML gets overlooked
> > largely for the reason that it's data type support is sub-standard for
> > any serious business use.
>
> I've heard lots of reasons that enterprises won't use XML -- many of
> them valid -- but I've never heard this one. Do enterprise decision
> makers even know about, much less base decisions on low-level criteria
> like typing?
No. But they do want something simple that works. And to them,
XML in it's current form does not provide this. It isn't simple
and they can't easily get it to work.
I'm just reporting what I hear.
> <entry>
> <quantity xml:type="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int";>5</entry>
> <date xml:type="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#date";>2004-12-31</date>
> </entry>
>
> or, if you can tolerate Namespace prefixes in attribute values,
>
> <entry xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#";>
> <quantity xml:type="xsd:int">5</entry>
> <date xml:type="xsd:date">2004-12-31</date>
> </entry>
ok, but the same thing using my encoding method is:
<entry>
quantity#=5
date@=2004-12-31
</entry>
Don't ask me to tell you how many characters were saved (I can't
count very well) but there were a few.
You were trying to transmit a mere 11 characters and look how
many extra characters got added. I believe that my encoding is
significantly more succinct, efficient and compact. Not to
mention faster and easier to parse.
Best Regards
David
----------------------------------------------------------------
|
