Subject: Re: [xsl] Design of XML so that it may be efficiently stream-processed From: Hank Ratzesberger <xml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 15:14:41 -0800 |
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> Hank Ratzesberger <xml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > [] > > > But in so many instances, this is the pattern that makes XML such a > > good replacement for binary / proprietary files because the document > > becomes self-contained. For example, when I worked with a > > seismologist all the data is just time series points of > > acceleration. Only until you add the instrument, sensitivity/scale, > > geo-location, can it be usefully integrated with other records for > > the same event. > > JFTR, therere various binary formats doing essentially the same > (check, e. g., the varieties of HDF [1], prescribed by NASA for > EOS [2] missions), /and/ also that there /is/ a binary variety > of XML [3]. (Well, a format that is entirely isomorphic to XML, > yet built atop of a binary encoding, anyway.) > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_Data_Format > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Observing_System > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Infoset Well, I agree that you don't want your metadata to stray to far from your data. Good points. For the context, for the metadata, I think XML has the advantage because that is often human readable content. There may be a location or name that is in Cyrillic or an original comment in French. --Hank
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Design of XML so that it , Ivan Shmakov | Thread | Re: [xsl] Design of XML so that it , Timothy W. Cook |
Re: [xsl] Design of XML so that it , Richard Fozzard - NO | Date | Re: [xsl] Design of XML so that it , Hank Ratzesberger |
Month |