On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote: > In article <mailman.2265.1369693294.3114.python-l...@python.org>, > Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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> > > XML doesn't represent strings, or lists, or dicts. It represents trees > of nodes with labels. If you wish to invent some richer semantic > meaning to impose on those nodes, that's up to you.
Sure it doesn't, but it's very often used that way. So I guess what I'm really saying is that XML is wrong for 90% of the places it's used. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list