Re: XML: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:32:59 -0400
Message-ID: <bMOdnV-mPeeNmP7cRVn-oQ_at_comcast.com>
"Lemming" <thiswillbounce_at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:afp5m0tfejeosbivqqq89b059bhu8i0u7d_at_4ax.com...
> It still seems to me that XML is just another file format, slightly
> more humanly readable than csv, but no more intelligible to a machine
> without specific programming to tell the machine what to do with the
> contents of the XML, and perhaps less so.
IMO, XML is a lot more than csv, although a lot less than a DBMS. The X stands for Xtensible, and they really mean it. You can use it to transport a stream of tuples, but that's just the beginning.
There is lots to learn in there.
> But I must ask: why do we have to pick a "one-size-fits-all" approach?
> Why is that better than deciding what is best for a particular
> application?
Why do we all use binary? Received on Tue Oct 05 2004 - 22:32:59 CEST