Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Elliotte Harold wrote: > Sean McGrath wrote: >> 1) The lack of sane, simple roundtrippability. I read in some XML, I >> write it straight back out again. I loose stuff on the way. R u nuts? >> And you call this a machine processible data format:-) > > In my experience if you really care about anything you lose (CDATA > sections, entity references vs. characters, etc.), that's a serious code > smell that indicates a major flaw in the stuff. Yeah, the stuff that > comes out may not be as nicely formatted for humans reading it with more > or a text editor, but often even that can be fixed with appropriate > options on the serializer. Well letting Sean's C14Nish needs on the side, the "humans reading it" part is of some importance ain't it? :) Like you I find RNG much easier to read than RNC. However, on a recent ongoing project I am co-editing a fairly large and modularized RNG with other people, one of whom is using a so-called "XML editor". After his edit passes, the output looks a lot more like a DB dump than anything remotely human usable. Sure it's a tool problem, but most of the current XML tools are pretty bad at supporting XML's textuality properly. -- Robin Berjon
|
