Re: [xml-dev] Four fine text-based data formats ... liberate yourselffro

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

On 3/24/13 10:36 PM, David Lee wrote:
> Maybe I can make sense of this another way. You are saying that some
> people with some data sets the way they choose to encode it In XML
> Did not fulfill their primary requirements as well as the way they
> chose to encode the data in another format? An example I might give
> is DVDs for film.  If the frames were encoded in text XML in a
> semantic schema wouldn't play on my DVD player fast enough or fit on
> the DVD,
>
> Is that a good comparison? If so they made a good choice. Although it
> still makes little sense to me how this relates to XML unless someone
> is claiming XML is the best format for all data for all use cases.
>
> Anyone out there with that claim?

The cases I've had with the most pushback were geodata, which is
probably a worst-case scenario.  It combines a lot of tiny pieces that
get a lot of markup (way beyond <lat> and <long>) with huge pieces of
binary data that have the same kinds of issues as geodata.

I've had some similar conversations with various Ajax folks, but those 
at least had simpler tradeoffs between JSON and XML.

(As Uche wisely notes, figuring out where you are in complex JSON can be 
terrible.  I'm very glad XML didn't opt for the </> tag, though I 
thought it was a great idea when I first encountered it.)

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/