Thanks Alain, Simon, and Henry.
One thing that stuck out as I read Henry's message is the word "semi-structured":
> XML remains the sweet-spot for semi-structured data
Henry, do you mean that XML's sweet-spot is just with mixed content? Fully-structured XML is not in its sweet spot?
XML with mixed content:
<Comment>This is a <emp>very</emp> nice widget</Comment>
Fully-structured XML:
<Book>
<Title>The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn</Title>
<Author>Mark Twain</Author>
<ISBN>0486280616</ISBN>
</Book>
Mixed content XML is in. Fully-structured XML is out. Is that what you are saying?
/Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 12:53 PM
To: Costello, Roger L. <>
Cc:
Subject: Re: What is XML's sweet spot?
"Costello, Roger L." <> writes:
> Arjun Ray wrote [2]:
>
> the authors [of a paper criticizing XML] do go wrong in
> characterizing XML as a "mechanism for serializing structured
> data", which is precisely where all the bad karma originates.
>
> if the question is "a flexible, efficient, automated mechanism for
> serializing structured data", then just about all of the time XML is
> _not_ the answer.
I strongly disagree. First, distinguish between human-authored
vs. automatically generated. Then, distinguish between human-targeted
vs. automatically consumed. Finally, consider whether
trust boundaries and/or mission-critical integrity constraints are
involved, i.e. whether validation is needed.
For the _very_ large space of automatically-generated and -consumed
information, where validation is required, XML remains the sweet-spot
for semi-structured data, in my opinion. And there are lots and lots
of systems that do this.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, Markup Systems Ltd.
Cavers Garden Farm, Denholm; by Hawick; TD9 8LN
+44 (0) 7866 471 388
Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail:
URL: http://www.markup.co.uk/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
