Re: What is the logic of storing XML in a Database?

From: Cimode <>
Date: 28 Mar 2007 07:51:39 -0700
Message-ID: <>

On Mar 28, 3:43 pm, "Daniel" <> wrote:
> On Mar 28, 9:55 am, "Cimode" <> wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 1:21 pm, Bernard Peek <> wrote:> On 2007-03->
> > > Data can be validated before it's transmitted.
> > Does that mean that CSV data with a header can't be validated?
> Of course not, an application at the endpoint can employ custom code
> to check the contents of the file, using a custom description of the
> flat file (the header isn't enough.) Or a vendor can define a
> proprietary schema format for flatfiles and sell a proprietary tool
> for validating a CSV file that conforms to the flat file.
I should have asked the question differently. In what does XML allow validation? I thought XML was supposed to be used for transport?

> But nobody can write and sell (or give away as open source) a CSV
> validator that validates an arbitrary CSV file against a standard
> schema describing that CSV file, for the simple reason that no such
> standard schema exists. No tools exist in this category, in contrast,
> many such tools exist in the XML space.
Tools to do what again?

> > > Validation against a schema
> > > will trap most major errors. It will trap most of the minor errors that
> > > would normally require action by an expensive and extremely bored human being.
> > In what a header does constitute a schema.
> If you're suggesting that the header in a CSV file is like an XML
> Schema or a Relax NG Schema, then you clearly need to do some
> homework.
The question should have been: what else does XML schema bring as oppose to a header?

> > > Code to handle XML is standardised and therefore doesn't need to be
> > > rewritten for each individual application. This makes it more reliable and
> > > cheaper to develop and maintain.
> > How is standardized? What is a standard for coding XML?
> Do you know about XML Schema? Do you know about domains like life
> insurance that standardize on a schema such as ACCORD, so that they
> have a standard way of representing data?
That does not answer the question. This is a specific example of a company that uses XML. I know many clients who totally ignore XML.

> > > It is difficult to extend CSV systems boyond the simple flat-file system
> > > with a single record type. Traditionally, at least in the systems I've
> > > worked with, the solution is to denormalise the data from more than one
> > > table. Therefore CSV is usually more verbose than XML and can take up much
> > So what you are saying is that an XML file takes less space (less
> > verbose) than a flat CSV file?
> This is the only point on which I would be inclined to differ from
> Bernard :-)
So you are saying that XML is more verbose than CSV right?
> Regards,
> Daniel Parker
Received on Wed Mar 28 2007 - 16:51:39 CEST

Original text of this message