Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:54:27PM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> Now that's the bid. Still, no one has answered why I need
>> pointy brackets for that given comma-delimited ascii worked
>> just as well and is smaller.
>It's not self-describing? (unless you have headers and then you
>have to separate them from the data)....
That's ok. Most systems make the assumptions the initial lines
are the headers and when not, make a messy database entry so have to be
inspected. The same happens if the database schema is not determined
for the XML transform or the XML is not a basic row column structure.
Trust but verify. XML as a 'self-describing' format is limited to
cases for which all ends already share a vocabulary.
>It doesn't handle sub-structure? Most database dumnps don't need
Yep. Messages are not reports.
>There are better tools for handling XML, both at API level and
>at user/data level?
No. There are better syntaxes than XML for messaging.
>Interoperability means being general, means being less specific,
>means in general not being the best for the job at hand, but
>good enough, but good enough for lots of jobs is sometimes
>better than perfect for only one job.
Interoperability means two different systems can invoke operations
without negotiation. Portability means two systems can handle data
without negotiation. Good enough for most jobs means a solution
can fail catastrophically on operations for which it is not good enough.
I can hammer a screw, but I can't screw a hammer.
Still we are arguing generalities. Why XML for messaging?