From: Jim Brain (brain_at_jbrain.com)
Date: 2004-11-19 03:31:33
Spiro Trikaliotis wrote: >>XML is not very readable, >> >> > >It's a matter of being used to. > > I'm trying to stay on the periphery of this, as those who are going to put the most effort into this should dictate the format. However, I think the comments around XML are incorrect, or at least misleading. I think XML is very readable, especially if the alternative is: item=Disk1 bytes=76000 entry=Entry1 . . .entry=Entry200 item=Disk2 . . . Or other simplistic formats. XML is unambiguous, and can be manipulated very easily by XSLT to create any kind of format you need (including the above simplistic format). > > >>and tree-based XML editing tools may alter whitespaces around markers, >>which makes it pretty much impossible to efficiently use any version >>control system. >> >> > >One could use a "code beautifier" which would be mandatory before any >checkin is done. The version control system (CVS, SVN, ...) could even >enforce this formatting and deny checking in anything which is not >formatted this way. > >You see, it is possible to put such things in a version control system. > > I agree with Spiro. We do this every day, in CVS. >Does it? I always thought XML enforces Unicode, but does not tell if >UTF-8, UTF-16 or UTF-32 is to be used. > > XML doesn;t do either. An XML document can be in any format, but if it is not in UTF-8, it must have <?xml encoding="..."?> as the first line. We send XML files in EBCDIC around here. In the end, though, if the group wants to use another format, that is fine. I just wanted to clear some stuff up. And, sorry about hooking onto your post, Spiro, I deleted the others. Jim -- Jim Brain, Brain Innovations email@example.com http://www.jbrain.com Dabbling in WWW, Embedded Systems, Old CBM computers, and Good Times! Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.