On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 05/27/2013 09:31 AM, Wolfgang Keller wrote: >>> HTTP handles that just fine, with your choice of XML, >> >> And XML is definitely not suitable as a marshalling format for a RPC >> protocol. >> >> XML-over-HTTP is a true cerebral flatulance of some hopelessly clueless >> moron. > > Hmm. Well I think there are a lot of very smart developers that are > using xml to marshal rpc and it's working fine. So either they know > something you don't, or maybe they are just busy making code that > functions and functions pretty well, instead of making inflammatory > statements on USENET. Sure XML is not very efficient or compact, but it > does handle unicode intrinsically through standard encodings, and a > plethora of parsers makes it a decent choice.
I'll use XML when I have to, but if I'm inventing my own protocol, nope. There are just too many quirks with it. How do you represent an empty string named Foo? <Foo></Foo> or equivalently <Foo/> How do you represent an empty list named Foo? The same way. How do you represent an empty dict/mapping named Foo? Lemme look up my documentation... ah, the same way. Does this seem right to you?</JubalEarly> ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
