4 ms·
XML was never intended as a memory-efficient format (or if it was, it was an utter failure before a single tag had been transmitted over the wire). I don't und
by Jweb_Guru 11y ago
XML was never intended as a memory-efficient format (or if it was, it was an utter failure before a single tag had been transmitted over the wire). I don't understand why you believe that binary formats naturally lead to increased bloat; while it may indeed be the case, your post largely reads like speculation to me. One could just as easily posit that the rigidity required of such a format makes it much harder to change (and examples supporting this viewpoint abound, including things like IPv4). Can you provide some examples of actual binary protocols that underwent this transformation?
- Udo 11y ago> XML was never intended as a memory-efficient format I never said it was. I apologize if it wasn't clear from my comment, but it was centered solely on the aspect of human readability. You're not wrong about it being speculation though, I just don't see the harm since we're talking about a speculative source article in the first place. > Can you provide some examples of actual binary protocols that underwent this transformation? My entire comment was addressing an example where I felt a format had degenerated because it transitioned from a human-readable to a decidedly machine-readable form. My criticism is not based on the notion that binaries are bad in of themselves.
- WalterGR 11y agoXML was never intended as a memory-efficient format... I wonder if it was assumed during the creation of XML that it would usually be compressed. The largely symmetric open and close tags compress quite well...