On 12/7/2002 6:54, in article
mailman.1026453319.2703.python-list at python.org, "Oren Tirosh"
<oren-py-l at hishome.net> wrote:
> XML combines all the inefficiency of text-based formats with most of the> unreadability of binary formats :-)
Snicker away, but XML is the closest we've got to a universally accepted
structured data format.
> A growing number of utilities is a sign that a format is popular, not that> it is good. In fact, it may be argued that a simpler format would actually> need less tools.
It doesn't need to be "good". I'm not even sure what you mean by "good". If
you feel you can do a better job of designing an extensible structured data
format that you can convince the rest of the world to write parsers and
generators for that plug into pretty much every available language, editor
and database, then be my guest.
If I need to exchange some structured data with someone else, I can spend an
unbounded amount of time agreeing a format in advance with them or I can
just pick a sensible looking schema and dump it to XML. As long as the other
party can see what the different tags mean they can trivially import it.
I'm not sure it is possible to "overuse" XML. If you need to read and write
structured data, why bother coming up with your own format? (see: the entire
contents of /etc) Or why use something that is proprietary to a particular
language or system? (see: Pickle)