RE: [xml-dev] RFC for XML Object Parsing
len
You said, I believe most debates of this issue are about using XML for what it is not very good at versus applying XML where it is very good.
I say, can we make XML better? So we can use it in more places? without breaking any 1.0/1.1 support?
Brian
You said, I believe most debates of this issue are about using XML for what it is not very good at versus applying XML where it is very good.
I say, can we make XML better? So we can use it in more places? without breaking any 1.0/1.1 support?
Brian
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:48:46 -0500
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] RFC for XML Object Parsing
>
> Attribute order does not matter. Order of content marked as attributes
> might. Any order-dependent morphology has that requirement. For example, a
> data module code is a series of data module attribute values. Its order in
> the XML is schema-designer dependent and a lot of them alphabetize for some
> order (indicating a monkey level preference for ordered sets; less to think
> about later). Order is required in the next rendering as a split-delimited
> string used as an identifier. Constraint by application.
>
> Programmers array-schlep or they write microparsers or the data designer
> moves order-dependent data sets into elements where order can be prescribed.
> Speed of parse and avoidance of latency confuses serialization speed with
> efficiency for scripting in other use cases. Efficiency of the machine and
> versatility of the representation are balanced to the ease of data entry
> given the consumer has its own rules about identity and stack order.
>
> XML Doesn't Care.
>
> I believe most debates of this issue are about using XML for what it is not
> very good at versus applying XML where it is very good.
>
> len
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:30 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] RFC for XML Object Parsing
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:25:01 -0600, Brian Aberle wrote:
> > Attribute order matters,oid must be first however, OID IS NEVER REQUIRED.
>
> You do realize that this means "this is not XML"?
>
> You can't even guarantee attribute order in SAX. Suggesting that
> attribute order matters is pretty baffling, altogether.
>
> Amy!
> --
> Amelia A. Lewis amyzing {at} talsever.com
> The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
> regarded as a criminal offence.
> -- Edsger Dijkstra
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: [email protected]
> subscribe: [email protected]
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> To: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:48:46 -0500
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] RFC for XML Object Parsing
>
> Attribute order does not matter. Order of content marked as attributes
> might. Any order-dependent morphology has that requirement. For example, a
> data module code is a series of data module attribute values. Its order in
> the XML is schema-designer dependent and a lot of them alphabetize for some
> order (indicating a monkey level preference for ordered sets; less to think
> about later). Order is required in the next rendering as a split-delimited
> string used as an identifier. Constraint by application.
>
> Programmers array-schlep or they write microparsers or the data designer
> moves order-dependent data sets into elements where order can be prescribed.
> Speed of parse and avoidance of latency confuses serialization speed with
> efficiency for scripting in other use cases. Efficiency of the machine and
> versatility of the representation are balanced to the ease of data entry
> given the consumer has its own rules about identity and stack order.
>
> XML Doesn't Care.
>
> I believe most debates of this issue are about using XML for what it is not
> very good at versus applying XML where it is very good.
>
> len
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2014 2:30 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] RFC for XML Object Parsing
>
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:25:01 -0600, Brian Aberle wrote:
> > Attribute order matters,oid must be first however, OID IS NEVER REQUIRED.
>
> You do realize that this means "this is not XML"?
>
> You can't even guarantee attribute order in SAX. Suggesting that
> attribute order matters is pretty baffling, altogether.
>
> Amy!
> --
> Amelia A. Lewis amyzing {at} talsever.com
> The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be
> regarded as a criminal offence.
> -- Edsger Dijkstra
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: [email protected]
> subscribe: [email protected]
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php