XML vs. Name Value pair was ->RE: XML and RPG-CGI, is X ML needed. was -> HolyWar . . ..

<Brad>So, instead of using value pairs (using POST I would hope,
not GET) you choose to wrap each piece of data with tags,
creating at least 50% more data being transferred for the
same application?  
</Brad>

I knew you would pipe in!  :-)

Very valid question and I dislike the extra data as much as the next guy,
but to make my point more valid let me give you an example where I thought
XML would be better than a POST with name value pairs.  Tell me how you
would put this into name value pairs -
http://mowyourlawn.com/temp/ValuePair.xml



<Brad>
If you're using HTTP for the XML transfer, are you sticking
to HTTP rules as well?  Or just using it as a tranport and
ignoring the HTTP rules?
</Brad>

When you say HTTP rules are you referring to the headers being in correct
form?  If that is what you mean then yes, I conform to the HTTP rules.

<Brad>
Just like Classic vs. Apache server.  Apache is "cooler"
and more widley used, but with Classic (Cern) you can
config your server with 3 lines, vs. the 100 or so it takes
with Apache. :)
</Brad>

The nice thing about Apache is that it decodes the content of the post back
to normal, meaning it takes out all encodings like %20.  With Classic you
have to decode it manually, unless there is a setting I have missed.  I like
Classic better than Apache except for above reason.

Aaron Bartell