[WEB400] RE: XML vs. Name Value pair

["Bartell, Aaron L. (TC)" <ALBartell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Very true Mike.  I am in an environment where we are to use subsets of the
cXML standard so that is why it looks kinda ugly.  There's nothing to say it
couldn't look like this:

<Ord id="123">
 <Itm>1111</Itm>
 <Itm>2222</Itm>
 <Itm>3333</Itm>
 <Itm>4444</Itm>
 <Itm>5555</Itm>
 <Itm>6666</Itm>
</Ord>

Aaron Bartell

-----Original Message-----
From: MEovino@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:MEovino@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 4:05 PM
To: Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries
Subject: Re: XML vs. Name Value pair was ->RE: [WEB400] XML and RPG-CGI,
is X ML needed. was -> HolyWar . . ..



Who says your tag names have to be that long, anyway?  OK, if you're using
a DTD or schema that you didn't create, you're pretty much stuck with it.
But it doesn't look like Aaron's doing that here.  And in my case, I
usually wind up creating the Schema.

XML doesn't *have* to be so verbose.  We just make it that way.

Mike E.



 

                      "Bartell, Aaron

                      L. (TC)"                 To:       "'Web Enabling the
AS400 / iSeries'" <web400@xxxxxxxxxxxx>               
                      <ALBartell@taylor        cc:

                      corp.com>                Subject:  XML vs. Name Value
pair  was ->RE: [WEB400] XML and RPG-CGI, is X        
                      Sent by:                  ML needed.  was -> HolyWar .
. ..                                                 
                      web400-bounces@mi

                      drange.com

 

 

                      09/04/2003 04:44

                      PM

                      Please respond to

                      Web Enabling the

                      AS400 / iSeries

 

 





<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






_______________________________________________
This is the Web Enabling the AS400 / iSeries (WEB400) mailing list
To post a message email: WEB400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/web400
or email: WEB400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/web400.