Quoting Scott Little on Sun 5 Jan 2003 8:52 to Jan Vermeulen:
sl> [ 04 Jan 03 21:51, Jan Vermeulen wrote to Micael Bulow ]
JV>> So please show us the following lines in XML:
sl> The structure is still being considered.. that's the tricky bit.
sl> If we knew how to arrange the data we'd be writing code right now.
Having seen what followed I can see that...
A few comments:
sl>
sl> PING, ENC
PING is not a User Flag.
sl> flags="CM,XA,V32B,V42B,V34,VFC" />
sl> flags="CM,XA,V120L,V120H,X75" />
sl> lags="IBN" />
311 characters where the nodelist uses 143. 217%...
sl>
sl> 213.84.184.65
sl> Jan Vermeulen
sl> CM, PING, ENC
CM and PING are not user flags...
sl>
sl> 31-75-6400-418
sl> XA,V32B,V42B,V34,VFC,V120L,V120H,X75
sl>
sl>
sl> 213.84.184.65
sl> IBN
sl>
sl>
377 characters for 117 in the nodelist: 322%
sl>
sl> That's just two possible ways of listing the same node (60 and 100
sl> have the same data, except their name) - using attributes of an
sl> element (name= sysop= flags= etc), and using sub-elements (
sl> etc), and just one way of nesting the addressing structure
sl> (Nodes as sub elements of a Hub, rather than as attributes of the
sl> nodes).
Either way, it takes a lot more screen and a lot more typing for *Cs
that are supposed to keep their part of the nodelist up to date.
Parsing by a mailer will take considerably more time, wether it builds
its own database or uses the XML file instead of the GONL (Good Old
NodeList).
The size of the uncompressed XML nodelist will be about 275% of the
GONL; your compression ratio will be better becayse of the many spaces so
you may end up with a zip file size of 135%.
You're worse off as soon as you start adding charcters over 0x7F and
follow the UT-8 or even UNICODE rules.
Do not think I am your enemy; I evaluate this project the same way was
in my professial life.
-==-