Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Joshua D. Drake<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> So, we are just trying to whip into shape explain diagnostics which are
>> in JSON or XML, and now you want us to exclude XML from this one because
>> you don't like it? Can we please try for some consistency?
>>
>> Sorry to break it to you, but there are plenty of people and businesses
>> who want XML. And I certainly don't want to have to master every data
>> representation model out there. XML has far more traction than anything
>> else that's comparable in my experience.
>>
>> The fact that Greg is prepared to suggest CSV, with its obvious serious
>> deficiencies, as being *better* than XML, makes his whole argument
>> highly suspect IMNSHO.
>
> From a business perspective, XML is the only viable option for output.

Wow, I feel like it's time for a bench-clearing brawl!

My serialization format kicks your serialization format's butt!

This doesn't have a whole lot to do with the original topic of this
thread, which unless I missed something had only to do with extending
the FE/BE protocol, but it definitely makes for lively conversation.
Anyone want to vote ASN.1 for world domination? Can we set up some
kind of cage match between the dueling standards?

...Robert