Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:06:37PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: RIPEMD160
>>
>>
>>
>>> If that's what we're trying to solve, I don't think that adding
>>> some kind of proprietary shorthand coding is a good idea. If
>>> we're do to this at all, it should be a connection-based GUC
>>> option, and use some standard formal like XML fragments.
>>>
>> +1 to this idea in general, but *please* don't consider the use of
>> XML. If we really need some sort of formatting, let's do CSV. Or
>> YAML. Or JSON. Anything but XML.
>>
>
> +1 on the "anything but XML." XML reeks of inner platform effect.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner-platform_effect>
>
>
>

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.

cheers

andrew