> > Hmm. What about XML as a standard is not elegant?
On 8/27/07, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> Indeed it isn't. A format that gobbles up more bytes for tagging than
> the data it wraps cannot be elegant.
Rubbish. What definition of "elegant" are you using? Let's just use
WikiPedia : "Elegance is the attribute of being tastefully designed,
decorated and maintaining refined grace and dignified propriety."
These are all about taste, not about byte size.
And thinking saving 200 bytes per record is a *win* is - to put it
mildly - just plain ignorant.
> You don't see what I mean? 31 extra bytes for every subfield rather than
> 2?
Yes, I understand what you're saying, but I'm afraid judging XML by
what MARC XML has come up with is like judging all dance by what
break-dance looks like. Such judgements are just plain wrong.
Where is this more elegant than
> 245 10 $aInterview with Keith McCance$h[sound recording]$c[Interviewer :
> Bronwyn Benn] ?
I'm sorry, but I fail to see anything elegant in there. In fact, I see
lots of limitation, such as the impossibility of recursing, using $
for other things easily, humanly seeing stops and starts, and no
possibility of more than two levels of strict structure. Elegance?
Nope, sorry.
> The difference is the language-tied tags. They are not international.
Again, I'm not sure if it's the generic misconception of what the XML
standards are all about, but there is *NO* difference between <foo
id='245'>, <title>, <245> or <dhghsfnghdsuifghsdifghn> in XML, and
this applies to element names and attribute names alike. The
internationalisation is in your mind alone, not in the schema defined.
Sure, you can play the 'internationally neutral language' card,
although I'm afraid C, Java, PHP, Ruby, Python and other programming
languages will prove you wrong.
> Only numbers are. Terminology chances, and then there you are with
> your nice outdated tags. Numbers resist change.
Codswallop. A number 245 which is defined by a standard as 'title' is
no more protected from change than a alphanumeric token. And, I'm
afraid to tell you, is exactly what XML is; just stop and start
tokens, free from language constraints. Again, there is *NO*
difference between 245, <title>, <245> or <dhghsfnghdsuifghsdifghn>.
They are all tokens which we can assign the semantics of 'title'. I
think you put way too much trust in numbers being immune to change.
(Several changes in postcode from around the world should provide
plenty of examples of just how wrong this misconception is)
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Mon Aug 27 2007 - 05:08:23 EDT