Re:XML for databases: a dead idea
by mnarayan01 on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:00PM
(#5061638)
God knows something to ease the closing tag verbosity would make XML at least twice as useable. I wonder if there's anything in the grammar that would conflict with </> as a closing tag? I'm almost tempted to muck with libxml and add it for personal use.
Re:XML for databases: a dead idea
by fusiongyro on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:19PM
(#5061777)
A personal dialect of XML? Wouldn't you be better off making your own grammar from scratch?
Re:XML for databases: a dead idea
by mnarayan01 on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @02:00PM
(#5062119)
If I installed it at the system level, then anything that linked against libxml/libxml2 would have the enhancement. Which is also the biggest reason I'm not going to do it...I'd invariably end up distributing XML with the sugarfied close tag.
> XML is still a good solution for human-readable data
Urgh... maybe the data I have had the misfortune of working with are not exercising the proper options. The ratio of metadata to data always seems too high.
Overuse is likely the cause of my dislike.
XML is also very ubiquitous in library support, having been around for over 15 years.
I think the most negative reaction to XML is the extreme overuse for things like component configuration, where there's no defaults, and every property and class name must be specified. Also, the misguided tag closing (<tag>content</> would have sufficed) adds to the verbosity.
1: https://plus.google.com/118095276221607585885/posts/RK8qyGVa...