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
brain@jbrain.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.