| 1 |
On 24 March 2014 11:54, Joshua Kinard <kumba@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> That said, Is XML that specific that every single atom has to be wrapped by |
| 4 |
> an individual tag? A comma-separated list of values in its own XML tag is |
| 5 |
> prohibited by the spec? I don't use XML often (if at all), so I am not |
| 6 |
> familiar with its intrinsics. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
By nesting CSV inside XML, you've now got 2 formats to deal with instead of |
| 11 |
1. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
In pure XML, you can get a properly decoded array of tag elements with a |
| 14 |
simple XPath query: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
//tag |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But with CSV-in-a-tag you have to extract the tag and subsequently parse it. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So you're hand implementing a parser to parse parts of XML that already |
| 21 |
convey data without needing to hand-parse. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Which is more effort for everyone who touches the file, not less. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Add to that automated ways to update the tags ( again, having to implement |
| 26 |
a custom serialiser in addition to the custom parser ) and its just not |
| 27 |
worth the tiny amount of savings. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Because really, if space efficiency was #1 priority, we'd not be using XML |
| 30 |
at all, let alone XML with pesky whitespace indentation that consumes |
| 31 |
needless bytes. =) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Kent |
Archives