Head Geek <headgeek@Kubuntu.local> wrote: > > It's already been said that XML has some advantages in terms of > available general=-purpose tools. But I'll say it again--I see > no _functional_ difference between a file containing elements > with attributes that contain elements with attributes and a > file containing records with data that contain records with data. > True, it's the same data. But the added value of a flexible organization structure in the file, along with the transparency of the "rules"/guidelines for it's use are an improvement over a flat file, I think. I also think that "general purpose tools" only serve to show that XML can be flexible. In fact, without tools that specifically benefit genealogy/family history/whatever users the result is a diservice to XML by adding confusion without results and progression. (Wish I was a programmer!). > The goodness or badness of the data model is irrelevant to the > advantages or disadvantages of the syntax of GEDCOM vs. XML. > Also somewhat true, except that the use of XML would be what the software needs to understand and cope with rather than any one (or more) fixed set of file/format/software-specific rules. > But the goodness or badness of the data model is a more important > issue than the syntactic carrier. Well, I don't agree exactly with that. The data model differences are probably the biggest issue right now, but certainly assuring at least a basic standard with regard to syntactic format would fix a lot of issues as well. Cheryl's example of the calender used and even date syntax.. standard capitalization, etc. are all important, imo. Now, before anyone freaks out.. that doesn't mean that a user would be forced to use a particular calender or capitalization, only that the software would either remap between the data and the display/file output and/or simply include the particular rule that's used so the next s/w and user would know.

JD <jd4x4@ wrote: > True, it's the same data. But the added value of a flexible organization > structure in the file, along with the transparency of the Again, how is XML more flexible than GEDCOM? The flexibility, if any, has to be built into the semantics--the DTD and what is allowed to link to what. I may complain about areas where GEDCOM is a bit rigid, but overall, it's MORE flexible than many software implementations. > Well, I don't agree exactly with that. The data model differences are > probably the biggest issue right now, but certainly assuring at least a > basic standard with regard to syntactic format would fix a lot of issues > as well. Cheryl's example of the calender used and even date syntax. Again, if you can't force them to comply with the GEDCOM 5.5 spec, you can't force them to comply with the GEDCOM 6 DTD or any other DTD, much less the semantic parts that a DTD cannot express. -- Wes Groleau Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise according to his own conceit. -- Solomon Are you saying there's no good way to answer a fool? -- Groleau