8 ms·

Zipped XML sounds like a bad idea. It's slow and bad. I say XCF forever.

by roschdal 1mo ago

EvanAnderson 1mo ago
SQLite would have been a lot better choice, in my opinion.
Arainach 1mo ago
> It's slow and bad. Seems to have been working great for MS Office.
- dijit 1mo ago
  “Great”. No offence to anyone, but I would not consider the performance of MS office to be great. I guess it's comparative, but then I compare to its previous editions which used a sliver of the resources to accomplish 95% of what modern o365 does.
  - Ygg2 1mo ago
    Office documents since the 2007 have used a zipped XML approach. Just take an .docx and open it in 7zip. EDIT: Narrowed the date.
    - dijit 1mo ago
      I’m aware. IIRC this was a response to Microsoft being forced to use some “open” protocol or something.
  - mdp2021 1mo ago
    > previous editions... used a sliver of the resources Well of course, but given that the previously employed technique was blitting, fliedumping memory areas, you can't be more efficient than that. Using XML is for transparency (readability). (And, note, in context, I regard the ms office file format as lousy. The OpenOffice/LibreOffice format is good.)
    - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
      I don't think your parent comment was talking about the resources involved in saving a file, but rather the resources involved in running the software.
      - mdp2021 1mo ago
        Thank you, probably so, but in that case I cannot see how said comment is consistent in the branch ("about file formats") - I do not get how it would follow.
  - graemep 1mo ago
    Its very widely used. Perfomrance might not be great, but adoption is.
srvmshr 1mo ago
Pardon my ignorance about formats, but between XML & JSON, what would have made them choose XML? As I understand there is lot more tooling, standards & existing software examples around JSON for project & records management (e.g. VSCode's records as settings.json for example). Wasn't XML spearheaded by Microsoft but mostly used by Microsoft today?
- cozzyd 1mo ago
  json's only advantage is it's easier to write by hand, but that's not really a consideration here. XML has schema support and much more tooling available.
  - flgggd 1mo ago
    > much more tooling available Most of which is barely maintained and low quality. For example, just recently: https://linuxiac.com/libxml2-becomes-officially-unmaintained/ https://linuxiac.com/libxml2-becomes-officially-unmaintained... But even before it became officially unmaintained, it was already quite unloved, and it's one of the most used xml library. We are not in the peak Java/J2EE era anymore. Pretty much nobody is going to willingly work on the foundations unless they're getting paid because the majority absolutely loathes XML and would not see maintaining XML libs as fun, and guess what, they're not? xslt also got removed from web browsers because nobody wants to maintain those libraries. And corporations like Google don't want to pay a dev for those either. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/deprecating-xslt https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/deprecating-x... Meanwhile the tooling around JSON is as healthy as it's ever been, with very efficient implementations in most common programming languages and multiple SIMD impls in C, C++, Rust etc. People actually want to work on this.
- actionfromafar 1mo ago
  JSON made me not hate XML. YAML made me not hate JSON.
- lelanthran 1mo ago
  > As I understand there is lot more tooling, standards & existing software examples around JSON for project & records management I don't understand why that is relevant; as long as there is a minimum level of tooling, libraries and support for their choice, what benefit would JSON bring over XML? I don't see a clear reason for one over the other. Honestly, I'd have the same question if they chose JSON and someone asked why did they choose JSON over XML - Why wouldn't they?

Zipped XML sounds like a bad idea. It's slow and bad. I say XCF forever.

EvanAnderson 1mo ago

SQLite would have been a lot better choice, in my opinion.

Arainach 1mo ago

> It's slow and bad. Seems to have been working great for MS Office.

dijit 1mo ago
“Great”. No offence to anyone, but I would not consider the performance of MS office to be great. I guess it's comparative, but then I compare to its previous editions which used a sliver of the resources to accomplish 95% of what modern o365 does.
- Ygg2 1mo ago
  Office documents since the 2007 have used a zipped XML approach. Just take an .docx and open it in 7zip. EDIT: Narrowed the date.
  - dijit 1mo ago
    I’m aware. IIRC this was a response to Microsoft being forced to use some “open” protocol or something.
- mdp2021 1mo ago
  > previous editions... used a sliver of the resources Well of course, but given that the previously employed technique was blitting, fliedumping memory areas, you can't be more efficient than that. Using XML is for transparency (readability). (And, note, in context, I regard the ms office file format as lousy. The OpenOffice/LibreOffice format is good.)
  - thaumasiotes 1mo ago
    I don't think your parent comment was talking about the resources involved in saving a file, but rather the resources involved in running the software.
    - mdp2021 1mo ago
      Thank you, probably so, but in that case I cannot see how said comment is consistent in the branch ("about file formats") - I do not get how it would follow.
- graemep 1mo ago
  Its very widely used. Perfomrance might not be great, but adoption is.

srvmshr 1mo ago

Pardon my ignorance about formats, but between XML & JSON, what would have made them choose XML? As I understand there is lot more tooling, standards & existing software examples around JSON for project & records management (e.g. VSCode's records as settings.json for example). Wasn't XML spearheaded by Microsoft but mostly used by Microsoft today?

cozzyd 1mo ago
json's only advantage is it's easier to write by hand, but that's not really a consideration here. XML has schema support and much more tooling available.
- flgggd 1mo ago
  > much more tooling available Most of which is barely maintained and low quality. For example, just recently: https://linuxiac.com/libxml2-becomes-officially-unmaintained/ https://linuxiac.com/libxml2-becomes-officially-unmaintained... But even before it became officially unmaintained, it was already quite unloved, and it's one of the most used xml library. We are not in the peak Java/J2EE era anymore. Pretty much nobody is going to willingly work on the foundations unless they're getting paid because the majority absolutely loathes XML and would not see maintaining XML libs as fun, and guess what, they're not? xslt also got removed from web browsers because nobody wants to maintain those libraries. And corporations like Google don't want to pay a dev for those either. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/deprecating-xslt https://developer.chrome.com/docs/web-platform/deprecating-x... Meanwhile the tooling around JSON is as healthy as it's ever been, with very efficient implementations in most common programming languages and multiple SIMD impls in C, C++, Rust etc. People actually want to work on this.
actionfromafar 1mo ago
JSON made me not hate XML. YAML made me not hate JSON.
lelanthran 1mo ago
> As I understand there is lot more tooling, standards & existing software examples around JSON for project & records management I don't understand why that is relevant; as long as there is a minimum level of tooling, libraries and support for their choice, what benefit would JSON bring over XML? I don't see a clear reason for one over the other. Honestly, I'd have the same question if they chose JSON and someone asked why did they choose JSON over XML - Why wouldn't they?