On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 20:49:16 +0400 (MSD), Roman Suzi wrote:
> OK. When I was talking about plain text, I had in mind that it has
> some proprietary format. For example, I can easily write:
> foo = "123"
> bar = "456"
> zoo = "la\"lala"
> And it's not very hard to parse that.
> In case of XML I will need something like
This, then, is a poor choice for XML. Where XML has the advantage over
flat ASCII text, is when the structure is more complex, especially if
it's hierarchical (which a heck of a lot of data is). Then a flat ASCII
file is too difficult for a human to parse *anyway*, so you might as
well take advantage of XML and still have all the advantages of having
the data readable in some form.
Bleh, that reads terribly. Hope I get the point across -- XML formats
don't give any particular advantage over simple, record-based flat ASCII
data; they do give advantage once the structure needs to become more
\ "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." -- |
`\ Pablo Picasso |
http://bignose.squidly.org/ 9CFE12B0 791A4267 887F520C B7AC2E51 BD41714B
|All times are GMT. The time now is 09:49 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.