 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> (why is XML used for *everything* these days?).
You only need one parser, and there are automated tools to check for
correct structuring.
The idea behind XML is simple enough, and certainly not without virtue.
Whether XML itself is the best possible way this kind of thing could
have been done... hmm. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>
>> (why is XML used for *everything* these days?).
>
> You only need one parser, and there are automated tools to check for
> correct structuring.
Still... you'd think that if that were the goal, they could design it so
that it DOESN'T exponentially increase your file size.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You only need one parser, and there are automated tools to check for
>> correct structuring.
>
> Still... you'd think that if that were the goal, they could design it so
> that it DOESN'T exponentially increase your file size.
Oh come now, it only induces a *linear* size increase. And any
half-decent compression algorithm can elide that. ;-)
In simple terms, redundancy = it's easier to detect when it's broken.
XML does however have a small zoo of other problems. You know, I lot of
people think that "XML" just means "I make up some tag names" and that's
all there is to it. It's actually way more complicated than most people
realise. I *still* can't get it to work right... :-S
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>
> Sounds like a job for... VRML!!!
>
I thought I was the only person who looked at Google's new Lively, and
was reminded of Blaxxun's Colony City.
> It's amazing the problems that were solved before 1995, and then
> forgotten about :)
>
> Actually, in looking at the Wikipedia page, it seems it's been
> superseded by another format, X3D, which sounds like a cross between
> VRML and XML (why is XML used for *everything* these days?).
>
Because XML must be hundreds of times easier to parse then VRML, if I
remember right. Different viewers supporting different extensions. And
using VRML for MUD-like systems, and early MMO type games?
Computers and network bandwidth have finally caught up, and the
presentation of media has shifted from distributed computers each with
their own view on the virtual world, to central systems displaying the
same thing to each client. X3D might be able to find a use, but it's not
going to be the same as VRML.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
>
> Sounds like a job for... VRML!!!
>
I thought I was the only person who looked at Google's new Lively, and
was reminded of Blaxxun's Colony City.
> It's amazing the problems that were solved before 1995, and then
> forgotten about :)
>
> Actually, in looking at the Wikipedia page, it seems it's been
> superseded by another format, X3D, which sounds like a cross between
> VRML and XML (why is XML used for *everything* these days?).
>
Because XML must be hundreds of times easier to parse then VRML, if I
remember right. Different viewers supporting different extensions. And
using VRML for MUD-like systems, and early MMO type games?
Computers and network bandwidth have finally caught up, and the
presentation of media has shifted from distributed computers each with
their own view on the virtual world, to central systems displaying the
same thing to each client. X3D might be able to find a use, but it's not
going to be the same as VRML.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
