On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:12:14PM -0400, William Ballard wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 10:51:07AM +0100, Antony Gelberg wrote:
William Ballard wrote:
> Single-letter element-centric XML is fairly readable:
>
> <o><t/>
> <p><o><p/><e>14</e><e>32</e></o></p>
> <p><o><m/><e>18</e><e>92</e></o></p>
> </o>
You are joking, right?
You're just not used to it. Once you get the hang of the "context" --
i.e., in that, <o/> means operation, first child of <o/> is the
operator, example operators are times <t/> and plus <p/>, subsequent
children of <o/> are operands, valid operands are either sub-operations
<o/> or parenthesis <p/> for grouping, <e/> contains only text values
which are numbers.
I have carried this kind of thing out to express an entire relational
database, including emedded schema, lookups, and computed columns, as a
concise XML document that is easy to grasp at a glance and easy to
maintain by hand in an editor.
Here is an example. Look f'd up to you?
Snipping out all the crap...
I think you've misunderstood one of the major purposes of XML, and that
is to be descriptive in tag choices. This is still uncomprehensible and
ugly. I will maintain that XML is meant to be parsed by machines and
that humans should be able to work with something else.
With XML as a valid storage mechanism of course. Like iTunes or OO.o.
--
Steve Block
http://ev-15.com/
http://steveblock.com/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
