David Lyon wrote:
> You're somehow trying to argue that sending more characters is
> somehow less.
Not at all. From the part you snipped:
>> David's non-XML: 65 significant non-whitespace characters per
>> car-part entry.
>> XML: 50 significant non-whitespace characters per car-part entry.
>>
>> ... we only need 30 car-parts entries to negate the cost of the XSD.
For all documents where you are trying to encode more than 30 car-part
entries, which you admit is the most likely case, encoding it in XML is
sending less characters than your non-XML. Using a more compact schema
language you can reduce this threshold even further.
> and that a two-file system is somehow simpler than a one file
> system.
I never claimed this. However, at least in this case the two-file
system is considerably more *efficient* (for significant numbers of
car-parts) and *extensible* (unbounded set of data types) than the
one-file system.
--
Chris Burdess
