XLF: Legacy Log Problems

[Steven Champeon]

On Thu, 9 Jul 1998, John Cowan wrote:
> I actually prefer the former to the latter, since it means I don't
> have to have a date parser behind the XML parser.  Using attributes
> makes it easy to pick out all 1998 entries, or all Thursdays, or
> all July 1998 entries, or whatever.

Are you assuming that the XML parser should be able to analyze the 
logfiles and produce reports on them as well? Seems like a lot to 
ask of a parser... I was viewing this more as a data storage and
transfer format. The compromises would necessarily have to come when
deciding between storage (compact is better) and transfer (more 
explicit is better). I'm just concerned that any effort to standardize
on an XML-based logfile format will be rejected if it means the
admins of larger servers have to run out and buy Clariion disk
arrays just to hold their new 10x logfiles.

> In no case should we standardize on that ancient format.  If we
> must represent dates as strings rather than as attribute-bags,
> we should use a profile of ISO 8601.

Sorry to have raised hackles. Shouldn't have cut-and-pasted the
output from `date` into the message. I agree that we should stick
to current, standard formats for dates and whatnot. I just don't
see the utility of making every digit into an attribute.

--
"All the good geek things,  |          schampeo at hesketh.com
 only without all the       |     http://a.jaundicedeye.com
 bad geek things."          |  http://hesketh.com/schampeo/



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)