Re: XML: The good, the bad, and the ugly
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:03:01 GMT
Message-ID: <FSCcd.145019$He1.2614_at_attbi_s01>
"Lemming" <thiswillbounce_at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:fup5n0p6omq1gq05ib0jpo6tnejl0dpv5p_at_4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:32:59 -0400, "Laconic2" <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >Why do we all use binary?
>
> Binary is something we use because we are stuck with it. It's only
> there because of the hardware; because the devices we use are based on
> a model which uses a system of on/off switches to represent data.
> And most of the time we don't even need to know that those devices are
> working in binary.
"It's only there because of the hardware" applies to every file format ever, including XML. As a statement, it's a no-op.
> There are plenty of applications where we encounter problems which
> because of digital computers' reliance on binary means we have to
> approximate; we have to make do with the limitations of binary
> representation.
Approximation happens when our software is using finite resources to calculate numbers that require infinite resources to calculate. If we just want to store "pi" we can, but if we want an actual number instead of a symbol, we have to approximate. This is as true for string representations as it is for binary; there is no string representation of the digits of pi (or 1/3, or sqrt(2), etc.) that isn't approximate. Binary has nothing to do with it.
> XML, it seems to me, is a format designed for general data transfer.
It's a format designed to markup text with presentation, which is part of why it's so *bad* for general data transfer.
Yes, it's bad at everything (except possibly marking up text with presentation.)
> It is strong at providing data in a
> standard format readable by a wide variety of different systems.
It's no better at this than any other format. Just because many computers already have 500k XML parsers installed doesn't mean the format is easy to parse.
> Where it falls down is as a data transfer medium for large volumes of
> data between specific systems. Just like Jack, it knows a little
> about many things, but does not know very much about any of them
> individually.
XML is an appalling disaster. It's what comes of thinking that because something is good for one purpose, it must be good for every purpose. It isn't typed, for crying out loud! It doesn't have schemata!
Marshall Received on Mon Oct 18 2004 - 01:03:01 CEST