Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Lew Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Interplatform (interprocess, interlanguage) communication Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 20:07:54 -0800 (PST) Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 45 Message-ID: <2745507.3.1328760474286.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbcpo5> References: <26124274.18.1328738542263.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbks5> <4f332c0a$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.164.137.214 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1328760474 7259 127.0.0.1 (9 Feb 2012 04:07:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 04:07:54 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <4f332c0a$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=173.164.137.214; posting-account=CP-lKQoAAAAGtB5diOuGlDQk0jIwmH0T User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:11866 On Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:14:31 PM UTC-8, Arne Vajh=F8j wrote: > On 2/8/2012 8:49 PM, BGB wrote: > > as noted, many people neither use schemas nor any sort of schema > > validation. in many use-cases, schemas are overly constraining to the > > ability of using XML to represent free-form data, or using them > > otherwise would offer little particular advantage. >=20 > xsd:any do provide some flexibility in schemas. >=20 > > say, if one is using XML for compiler ASTs or similar (say, the XML is > > used to represent a just-parsed glob of source-code), do they really > > need any sort of schema? >=20 > I would expect syntax trees to follow certain rules and not be free > form. In one breath we're singing the praises of binary formats, in the next we= =20 complain that XML isn't sufficiently flexible. "Do they really need any sort of schema?" with XML is usually a "yes". But only if you're interested in clear, unambiguous, readily-parsable and= =20 maintainable XML document formats. People often excoriate the supposed verbosity of XML as though it were the = only=20 criterion to measure utility. There is no inherent advantage of a LISP/list-like format over any other, n= or vice versa; it's all accordin'. If the convention is agreeable to all pa= rties,=20 it will work. If all projects were one-off and isolated from the larger wor= ld,=20 we'd never need to adhere to a standard. If we don't mind inventing our own= =20 tools for anything, we'd never have to adopt a standard with extensive tool= s=20 support. Where are the *real* costs of a software system? --=20 Lew