At 10:01 14/06/01 +0100, you wrote:

>I could produce my own file format from scratch - and write the tools to
>look after it... eg
>#SUMMARY#'broken html'</a> bugger"</P>

When I see something like that I think it should be in XML. There's an 
overhead involved with properly parsing and writing XML, especially if you 
want to work with Schemas or DTDs. However, if you go down the XML::Simple 
or XML::Writer route, the overhead is barely more than doing your own 
little parser for your own little ASCII format, and it's a hell of a lot 
more scaleable.

>The data from these files will primarily be diplayed within an HTML page. 
>perceived advantage of XML here (for someone who has barely scratched the
>surface of what XML can do), is the ability to (relatively) easily take 
>XML and spit it out to the browser - and yes I know it's never quite that

I'm biased because I'm now working in a highly SGML / XML based company, 
and it's remarkable what they manage to do with XSLT.

>I'm also trying to future proof the system slightly - I think that by 
>the data XML based it may make it easier to use in new and wonderful ways 
>the future, without having to write all the tools from scratch.

Yes. XML still suffers from a lack of fully working tools, and the way 
things like Schemas aren't 100% pinned down yet. But, overall, I kind of 
like it.

Jonathan Peterson
Technical Manager, Unified Ltd, 020 7383 6092

Reply via email to