[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <len.bullard@intergraph.com>, xml dev <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] basic qs - how is xml more flexible for exchanging data?
- From: Anil Philip <goodnewsforyou@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=DdiLHvsgcfVhjOuEVJwKP713aogTKoEPIW+pdWLcxiMun0j1U1BUOKhL8cgExnBSimZ1QsZzRHZsvS5G1LvCldnfwn8rwS/mrTaPz/Hm6MYqAAcwGBy1Rp5GLZwrW4CS5QuvLnYryebnQctyS7uhSYywdPnSyGzzwcgSOMHWfrY= ;
- In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE072073E3@hq1.ingr-corp.com>
Len,
Thanks for your post -
> No free lunch at the semantic table.
that is a pearl.
thanks,
Anil
--- "Bullard, Claude L (Len)"
<len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
> Permathread # ?
>
> It saves you from arguing about lex/syntax, and it
> has
> a reasonably robust structure. Past that, you
> get into applications so YMMV. There are some
> reserved
> attributes and namespaces but for the sake of
> brevity,
> I won't go there.
>
> XML is not now nor has it ever been the ability to
> blindly exchange information. It IS sharing at the
> primitive level of a parser but not names or types.
> For that, you have to step up to the next layer
> of description such as what a schema language
> provides,
> and then you have to be sure you share that.
>
> No free lunch at the semantic table. XML doesn't
> care
> so you have to. It's better than delimited ASCII
> because
> it has structure and relies on Unicode.
>
> len
>
>
> From: Anil Philip [mailto:goodnewsforyou@yahoo.com]
>
> I would agree that XML is human readable and that
> XML+HTML is probably better than HTML. However, I
> was
> wondering:
> When we used C, (I guess there's an entire
> generation
> that didnt need to learn it :)), one transferred
> data
> using structs.
> eg.
> /* from memory... */
> struct Foo {
> int i;
> char[] str;
> long j;
> };
>
> The Sender and Receiver were tied into explicitly
> knowing about Foo's structure - and so were
> considered
> tightly coupled, a bad thing.
>
> With XML, one is sending the description together
> with
> the data in a tagged text file. However, in most
> cases
> of data transfer, the code of both Sender and
> Receiver
> still has to know the structure of Foo especially
> when
> parsing the data file. So how is it more flexible or
> even better? (apart from endian stuff)
> thanks,
> Anil Philip
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the
> subscription
> manager:
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
|