Slashdot Mirror
Effective XML
In Effective XML: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your XML, Elliotte Rusty Harold takes a different approach: know your elements and tags -- they are not the same thing! -- and weigh your choices in a context, because any technology applied for the wrong reasons may fail to deliver on its promises.
Following Scott Myers' groundbreaking Effective C++, the author invites us to re-evaluate seemingly trivial issues to discover that life is not as simple as it seems in the world of XML. In each of the 50 items (chapters), he gets into the inner workings of the language, its usage and related standards, thus giving us specific advice on how to use XML correctly and efficiently. The 300-page book is divided into four parts: Syntax, Structure, Semantics, and Implementation. Yet in the introduction, the author sets the tone by discussing such fundamental issues as "Element versus Tag," "Children versus Child Elements versus Content," "Text versus Character Data versus Markup," etc. On these first pages the author started earning my trust and admiration for his knowledge and ability to get right to the point in a clear and simple language.
The first part, Syntax, contains items covering issues related to the microstructure of the language, and best practices in writing legible,maintainable, and extensible XML documents. (In it, over 19 pages are dedicated to the implications of the XML declaration!) That seems a lot for one XML statement that most people cut-and-paste at the top of their XML documents without giving it much thought, doesn't it? Actually not, if you follow the author's reasoning and examples.
The second part, Structure, discusses issues that arise when creating data representation in XML, i.e. mapping real-world information into trees, elements, and attributes of an XML document; it also talks about tools and techniques for designing and documenting namespaces and schemas.
The third part, Semantics, explains the best ways to convert structural information represented in XML documents into the data with its semantics. It teaches us how to choose the appropriate API and tools for different types of processing to achieve the best effect. This chapter has a lot of good advice for creating solutions that are simple, effective, and robust.
The final part, Implementation, advises the reader on design and integration issues related to the utilization of XML; these issues include data integrity, verification, compression, authentication, caching, etc.
This book will be useful to a professional with any level of experience. It may be used as a tutorial and read from the cover to cover, or one can enjoy reading selected items, depending on the experience and taste. The book's very detailed index makes it an excellent reference on the subject as well. In the prefix to the book, the author writes, "Learning the fundamentals of XML might take a programmer a week. Learning how to use XML effectively might take a lifetime." I'm not sure about the "lifetime" -- that's an awfully long time for using one technology -- but for the most confident of us this still may not be enough :) . Your mileage may vary, but I suspect that you could shave a few months off that time by browsing through this book once in a while. Most importantly, it will make you a better professional and make you proud of the results of your work. Wouldn't this worth your while?
You can purchase Effective XML: 50 Specific Ways to Improve Your XML from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
If you want to read any book for free, just ask your local library to order it and they will. Libraries guess at what books people want to read, so if anyone shows any interest in any book, they order it. They loose their federal funding if they don't spend the money they are allocated, so they are generally VERY willing to buy as much as possible.
----
Squirrel
It's got to be better than Ineffective XML
Yet Another Web Site
Reading this book shortens life expectancy. Still, it's your choice...
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
Sure, XML isn't inherently that deep - but neither are the tab-separated ASCII files which Unix tools used to do all kinds of really powerful things. Similarly, LISP property lists aren't that complex. XML's a bit more flexible, and carries enough decoration with it that people are willing to use it for building interfaces that they might not build using ASCII or XDR. And anything that lets the EDI people replace their stuff with simpler, more open technology is good too..
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
On a related note, more details on Microsoft Indigo are finally available. According to this article on XML mania microsoft's future platform will use XML as much as possible. More details are available on microsft's site. The funniest part is they are claiming indigo + longhorn will be the best thing since slice bread. Maybe they haven't learned the hard lesson that parsing XML kills performance.
I think one of the main problems with the embedding of XML architecture into office productivity software is unfortunately the end user. I mean, how long have programmes like MS Word had "document properties" contained in them, and how many people are actually using them? I'm currently working on a project to retrieve documents accross a company's backed-up data from the past 10 years, and there is very very little metadata available for us to do any searching on. Unless the embedded XML contained within office suites is brought more "to the fore" and in the face of users, instead of being a behind the scenes 'option', people just are not going to use it
The linux hacker
XML would work better if there were consistent DTDs for tagging information that everyone would use. There should be an open database of these DTDS.
I was looking for a simple one to tag photos with. Couldn't find it, made my own. Is there a repository of these DTDs out there?
Does the book discuss the pros and cons of XML? Such as, when is it a good idea to use XML? When would a CSV, INI, or other structured text document be a better choice than XML?
These are issues that need to be solved first, before one creates an effective XML structure. Does the book address them?
"Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
-Marilyn Manson
One of the things that I have found limiting about XML is that it is inheirently hierarchical. Real "things" can be categorized many ways. Hierarchical classification systems (such as our modern file systems) work poorly to classify a broad scope of information. Thus, some of the new development in the FS in Longhorn and also some I've head about, but can't remember, for Linux.
There are only 6,863,795,529 types of people in the world.
Include an XML Declaration
Mark Up with ASCII if Possible
Stay with XML 1.0
Use Standard Entity References
Comment DTDs Liberally
Name Elements with Camel Case
Parameterize DTDs
Modularize DTDs
Distinguish Text from Markup
White Space Matters
Structure:
Make Structure Explicit through Markup
Store Metadata in Attributes
Remember Mixed Content
Allow All XML Syntax
Build on Top of Structures, Not Syntax
Prefer URLs to Unparsed Entities and Notations
Use Processing Instructions for Process-Specific Content
Include All Information in the Instance Document
Encode Binary Data Using Quoted Printable and/or Base64
Use Namespaces for Modularity and Extensibility
Rely on Namespace URIs, Not Prefixes
Don't Use Namespace Prefixes in Element Content and Attribute Values
Reuse XHTML for Generic Narrative Content
Choose the Right Schema Language for the Job
Pretend There's No Such Thing as the PSVI
Version Documents, Schemas, and Stylesheets
Mark Up According to Meaning
Semantics:
Use Only What You Need
Always Use a Parser
Layer Functionality
Program to Standard APIs
Choose SAX for Computer Efficiency
Choose DOM for Standards Support
Read the Complete DTD
Navigate with XPath
Serialize XML with XML
Validate Inside Your Program with Schemas
Implementation:
Write in Unicode
Parameterize XSLT Stylesheets
Avoid Vendor Lock-In
Hang On to Your Relational Database
Document Namespaces with RDDL
Preprocess XSLT on the Server Side
Serve XML+CSS to the Client
Pick the Correct MIME Media Type
Tidy Up Your HTML
Catalog Common Resources
Verify Documents with XML Digital Signatures
Hide Confidential Data with XML Encryption
Compress if Space Is a Problem
It has been my experience with XML that it is like a lot of other things in development: the good developers understand it immediately and have native intuition towards best practices. The bad developers never really get it and spend their time reproducing tricks they saw in a cookbook. That's good and fine until you need something that doesn't quite fit into categories a, b or c. Another example of this is how high school and university data structure/algorithm classes never spend any time of development of new data structures that exactly meet the problem specification. Instead they lay out half a dozen types of linear lists, a couple of trees, and some hashing functions and say, "Well, you can glue just about anything together from this." Perhaps this book takes what is, IMHO, the better approach-- laying out the tools and politely explaining what the implication of each is, rather than attempting to list out pages of cute examples of what each can do.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
I know that as a student maintaining a website I am in the minority of XML users, but I the main thing that stops me from moving my site (small-scale though it may be) over to using more XML is sheer server load. The fact of the matter is that we still don't have true low-bandwidth database solutions, and until this changes, I doubt that much will be done with technologies like XML (at least on smaller, non-corporate sites) no matter how much potential they have.
--Goat
CEO, Goat Software
Goatblog
... and it is starting to dawn on me that trends like pervasive XMLization is going to haunt us for ever. The combination of business-minded consultants that push a market to create demand for themselves and a huge number of clueless but enthusiastic developers that will jump on any new idea and push it where it doesn't want to go unsurprisingly leads to this kind of instability.
I hate XML with a passion. Let me present you with three examples
1) Programming languages based on XML.
Yes, it is true. Perverted minds, somewhere on this planet, actually seems to think that this is a neat idea! Since their initial conception the pivotal point of programming languages have been to raise the level of programming. To move from the computers domain to the human domain - to make it more intuitive an natural for a human being to program a computer. With these new XML-based languages we are moving a step backwards, because truely the only benefit of XML in this context is that it is easier for computers to parse, while it is certainly harder for humans.
2) XSLT
Have you tried it? I rest my case.
3) SOAP
Okay, initially this actually seemed like a good idea to me, but having thought about it, I really think it sucks. Okay, so it is easier to implement SOAP for a particular platform or programming language, but a wire protocol is like a compiler or an OS kernel in a certain sense - it is okay that it is very hard to write, as long as it is stable and high performance, because it is such a central component.
I have not read this book, but it sounds interesting already.
XML is an interesting technology that has the potential for changing the way we use technology in all kinds of weird and wonderful ways. (And in a few ways that may not be so wonderful.) But using XML correctly is tough. I've written and discarded more DTDs and schemata than I care to admit because they were seriously flawed. Getting it right is important and very, very hard.
XML looks simple, and in some ways it is. But in so many other ways it is not simple at all - in large part because it gives us a tool to approach some very hard problems. And hard problems, often even when expressed in the simplest way around, tend to stay hard. (Calculus makes saying some things simple, for example, but understanding those things still takes work and insight.)
I will be taking a good look at this book in the near future to see what it has to say. And I'd urge those who dislike XML to do the same. And finally, even those who like XML need to think hard about how to use it well, so perhaps this would be a good read for them too.
XML is just text! If the XML parser is slow, write a faster one! Figure out where the bottlenecks are! Don't give me this XML is slow crap. This is slashdot - you're supposed to be a geek. If you don't like XML, fine, but come up with a geeky reason not to like it, not some problem whose solution is just to roll up your sleeves and do some hacking!
:')
Oy!
i use XML for a lot of things and it's been quite decent. but on the other hand, we're using dual pentium IIIs for trivial stuff that was running fine on a PII with c/c++ app without XML.
the fact is that XML is just marshelling and unmarshelling of all computational data to and from strings thereby negating fast numerical performance that a CPU inherently has. you want to add two numbers? create a string representation, pass it around thru a bunch of parsers/transformers as strings then finally convert it back to the number it really is then add then convert it back to string for passing it around all over again... what a waste.
Browse the Technical Reports, Recommendations and Proposed Recommendations at W3C as there are a lot of DTDs and Schemas there. I found a DTD for generic simulation representation there. There's quite a bit if you take the time to look.
What is music when you despise all sound?
Reading through the posts on this board, I tend to agree with the criticisms about XML. It's a big dreadnought of a specification when, in most cases, a nice light corsair or even single-seat fighter would do the trick. Still, I would normally be inclined to say of XML what is said about Democracy: it's the worst system out there, except for all the others.
Then I found YAML. Long and short, YAML is very lightweight, eminently readable, easy to use (parsers exist in multiple languages) and a pleasure all kinds of projects that require data serialization. Where XML branches off into other types of uses, like XSL programming, YAML doesn't really compete. I find this to be a strength, actually, because once you've used YAML and seen it in action, XSL seems like a big, fat add-on. But for those that rely on XSL and other things, YAML won't do the trick.
But if all you need is data serialization in a compact, easy-to-read, easy-to-use package -- and this, in my opinion, is by far what XML is most used for -- then YAML is great. Give it a shot.
As for XML. I used to hate it with a passion. Now I still hate it, but I'm less passionate. The creators of XML are ambitious people, and they tried to do something in that spirit. It works, basically and XML doesn't deserve *all* the bad press it gets.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
XML is highly overrated and generally over-used. Admittedly XML + CSS is better than html, but beyond that its only reasonable use is as a generalized syntax for configuration files, and as such does a good job, or at least I've had success using it that way in the past. Many (if not most) of its other uses are just poor program design. Soap is an extremely silly idea. Why use XML for a marshalling syntax for RPC? It's slower, bulkier, and just a bad choice in comparison to a binary marshalling mechanism. Now as a syntax for an RPC's IDL XML makes a lot of sense, but not as a transport.
Glad to get that off my chest. I have a bitter history with XML. I was the first person at my former company to bring XML in as a uniform configuration file format for our product, but then found myself a couple of years later forced into adding XML specific features to the filesystem that was the core of our company's product. I spent a week thinking about the idea, and concluded that it was a bad one. Thus followed a long (and fruitless) battle with management to scratch the plan. The end result was a technically nifty but useless set of features. The work remains unreleased for lack of customer interest. At least I get a bit of "I told you so." pleasure.
VeryGeekyBooks has more reviews of this book.
illegitimii non ingravare
That's because everyone uses slow XML parsers. Some years ago at one of the then-top 5 web portals I was unhappy with the standard SAX/DOM parser in use; it was ridiculously slow (and buggy).
So I wrote a new one. Parsing XML became one hundred fold faster! I timed it quite carefully.
Other people in this thread are saying "of course XML is slower than binary formats, it's 3 times bigger." But a factor of 3 in performance is nothing, considering some of the advantages.
A slowdown of 100, on the other hand, is absurd.
I don't know why people don't rebel against this and make faster XML parsers the widely-used ones; for whatever reason, apparently everyone continues using slow parsers.
At any rate, no, XML is not slow. It's just a simple, easy to parse format, for which IBM and others have written very, very slow parsers.
And everyone just assumes that it has to be slow. Sheesh, why should an XML parser be slower than a C++ compiler??? Come on.
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
Nice review. Thanks! It's interesting how many of the comments here relate directly to chapters in the book. For instance, there's a lot of concern about XML's perceived verboseness. This is addressed directly in Item 50, Compress if space is a problem. This chapter and ten others are online at http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml/ . Check it out.
You're right about that. It doesn't. Not all technologies that are isomorphic to each other are equally useful, any more than all Turing complete programming languages are the same. The representation matters, and the XML representation has proven more useful and accessible than the S-expression representation.
I'm not fully convinced that S-expressions are isomorphic to XML either. The proper handling of Unicode and non-English, non-ASCII text presented in multiple encodings is a big advantage of XML compared to S-expressions. I suppose something like this could theoretically be added to S-expressions, but has it been?