the relations. Remember XML is created as sort of "standard"(but quite flexible) for data exchange between different systems.
It has the compatibility with relational database in which the content(data points) and structure are clearly separated. On the contrary,
#2 lacks of this ability.
-Daniel
Richard O. Hammer wrote:
In this example, consider three possible representations of the data.
1) Natural language:
Mike bought a book "Professional XML Databases " written by Kevin Williams et al from amazon.com.
2) A language designed as needed for a specific application. In this case a set of lines of text with headers separated by colons. And probably there is further specification of allowable headers and bodies.
Book: Professional XML Databases Author: Kevin Williams et al Buyer: Mike Seller: amazon.com
3) XML
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<book=" Professional XML Databases" Author="Kevin Williams et al" Buyer="Mike" Seller="amazon.com">
The question I raise is not whether a program can understand natural language, #1. The question, rather, is whether a program can understand #2, a textual language following a specific syntax.
And clearly, it is not hard to write a program to read #2. There are utilities available to read data arranged like this, perhaps more readily available than XML parsers.
So which is better, #2 or #3?
I find #2 easier to read. I think it is much better. I still have not seen reason to use #3 where #2 can be used.
Rich
_______________________________________________ Juglist mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
