MisterX wrote:
>
> xml has a overhead is true.
> but unless you have a greater protocol, it can
> be made more compact <usr name="misterx" pass="******">
> it's with parsing functions that these become easy to
> manipulate.
>
> it's also easier to setup between multiple clients of different
> origin... imoho...
>
Why, take for example a basic HTTP/1.1 header which is plain text lines
separated by crlf.
In XML it would be the same lines surrounded by tags. Any language used
for clients understands plain text, but would have to translate XML
first.
> > I looked at info on different messaging software the other day and came
> > across "Jobber" which is "open source".
> > What distinguishes it doesn't seem to be a new technology or philosophy
> > but the fact that it's all XML: header information, the message itself
> > and client-server control data.
> > XML has great advantages at operating with data which is displayed but I
> > never understood the usefulness of it when it comes to managing data
> > "behind the scene".
> > Why would one use "<username>andu</username>" instead of "username:
> > andu" and stuff like that in a header? Same goes for webDav. The
> > overhead of parsing and transmitting at least twice the length of data
> > seems unacceptable to me.
> > I'd like to hear what other people think on this subject.
> >
> > Andu
Andu
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/metacard@lists.runrev.com/
Info: http://www.xworlds.com/metacard/mailinglist.htm
Please send bug reports to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, not this list.
