|From:||"Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>|
|To:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>|
|Cc:||David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: the case for machine-readable error fields|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> So, we are just trying to whip into shape explain diagnostics which are
> in JSON or XML, and now you want us to exclude XML from this one because
> you don't like it? Can we please try for some consistency?
> Sorry to break it to you, but there are plenty of people and businesses
> who want XML. And I certainly don't want to have to master every data
> representation model out there. XML has far more traction than anything
> else that's comparable in my experience.
> The fact that Greg is prepared to suggest CSV, with its obvious serious
> deficiencies, as being *better* than XML, makes his whole argument
> highly suspect IMNSHO.
>From a business perspective, XML is the only viable option for output.
Joshua D. Drake
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
|Next Message||Tom Lane||2009-08-05 00:53:16||Re: [PATCH] DefaultACLs|
|Previous Message||Andrew Dunstan||2009-08-04 23:55:39||Re: the case for machine-readable error fields|