Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 02:24, Mike Fitzgerald wrote: > +1. "compact" has clearer semantics than "optimised" if the main idea is to optimise for > space. -Mike > agree. the conversion of our database definition format to xml has lead to a verbose unreadable format. eg. age, 2 N0 #PRODUCT AGE is almost readable and easily parsed <attribute domain="N"> <comment>PRODUCT AGE</comment> <name>age</name> <width>2</width> <places>0</places> </attribute> is also readable, but when there's dozens of them the 2+ dimensional nature of xml makes the definitions hard to read. mind you we're making them changes, not for readability (though with familiarity it's not too bad) but for functionality. much more important in large projects. rick > Eric van der Vlist wrote: > > What about "compacted" XML if the target is to optimise for space? > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> >
|
