William, greetings.
On 23 Nov 2021, at 18:21, William David Velasquez wrote:
> <ext:UBLExtension>
> <ext:ExtensionContent>
> <SWMaker>
> <SWMakerInfo>
> <Name>FirstName</Name>
> <Value>Erick</Value>
> <Name>LastName</Name>
> <Value>Rich</Value>
> <Name>SWName</Name>
> <Value>FancySoft v.1.0</Value>
> </SWMakerInfo>
> </SWMaker>
> </ext:ExtensionContent>
> </ext:UBLExtension>
and
> I'm expecting customer won't be open to accept the change, because the
> actual structure can do the work.
>
> So, what arguments would you use to convince the customer?
One possible tack is to note that the key-value structure is highly
unidiomatic XML, so XML tools will always work poorly with it (you're
mentioned a couple of examples of what one might call 'impedance
mismatches' already), and it is thus building in technical debt by
design.
If the context is such that there is a set of key-value pairs being
serialised in this way, for in-principle arbitrary keys, then the
conclusion may be that XML is a poor way of doing this serialisation.
Use JSON instead (cf the discussion on this list in the last few weeks).
I think this is quite a good example of XML not being the right answer
for every problem, and indeed this is the sort of solution that gives
XML a bad name.
If the conclusion is that there are key-value pairs, and this
serialisation has got to have pointy brackets in it (kos that's what the
kool kidz are doing these days), then potentially use plist format [1].
I don't think anyone believes that .plist was a good Apple design
decision, but there are at least libraries for it, and no-one has to
waste their good energies trying to put a different shade of lipstick on
this particular pig.
I see that there's at least some 'ext:' XML namespacing happening there,
so another one surely wouldn't hurt.
(I don't think <Name>/<Value> is a great design, by the way)
Best wishes,
Norman
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_list
--
Norman Gray : https://nxg.me.uk
SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
