Re: XML only for data exchange ?

["Carl Rosenberger" <carl@db4o.com>]

From: "Gerd Mueller"
> Some of you wrote that XML is only an exchange format but not a storage
> format. Why ? E.g. if I would develop an article database for a newspaper
> or library software to store the whole work of Shakespeare, why not using
> XML as data format ? I think we all agree that plain files are not
suitable
> here. Should I use an RDBMS ? I doubt. What left IMHO is an XML database.

Hi Gerd,

it really depends on the data that you store and the performance that you
need.

If you consider storing numbers, XML gives away a lot of storage space:
4 bytes can hold the number 4294967296(10 figures).

XML is fine for storing a tree structure.
If you have a link network, you get a lot of linking overhead.

Tags and brackets are redundant in XML and would not be needed, if you have
a clean structure definition.

In my opinion, the wireless market will redefine data transport and storage.
Bandwith will be expensive.
Data will for sure not be sent with XML strings.
Of course you can compress XML, but why use a readable format in the first
place?

I bet that we will have a different standard for an object transport
protocol in 5 years.
It just makes sense to adopt this in all areas.

A browser to make the protocol readable will be just as good as your editor
to read XML.
Editing will not be straight forward, I agree.


> Finally it depends on the application. I don't agree with the general
> statement "XML is not a storage format".

"is" or "is not" is like "to be or not to be".
Of course you can use anything to store data, even dBase files or tabbed
text.

I would see XML as a document exchange format, where manual quick editing is
necessary and not restricted by any rights.


Regards,
Carl
---
Carl Rosenberger
db4o - database for objects - http://www.db4o.com