Horst Herb wrote: > On Tuesday 12 December 2006 23:49, Richard Hosking wrote: > >> Presumably each data item is wrapped in a set of xml tags - do they use >> a common set or are the tags defined for each vendor? Presumably they >> would be nested something like >> <DB> >> <table> >> <element> >> </element> >> </table> >> </DB> >> > > I never understood the terrible bloat of XML - why, oh why, when equally > powerful yet eminently more readable and vastly more efficient options are > available - options that are even easier to parse than XML too. > http://www.yaml.org > http://www.json.org > I think XML is OK as long as I don't have to read it. :-)
> With the rapid spread of AJAX technology and AJAX really increasingly > becoming > AJAJ (using JSON for object serialization instead of XML), JSON looks like a > safe bet. > I agree json looks much neater. Readability is important which is one reason why python is better than C (and why rails is better than python??. :-) > I think when "managers" dream up health messaging, they have to come with a > convoluted ambiguous monstrosity like HL7 - and when they dream up a > universal data exchange format, they come up with XML. Certainly not the > doings of real life software engineers ... > If XML is too wordy, HL7 is surely not wordy enough. I'd trade white space for hieroglyphics any day. David _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
