James Stroud wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2010, at 10:57 PM, Ethan Merritt wrote:
>> Bleah. Virtually none of those are human-readable, no matter what the
>> wikipedia page may choose to put as a heading title.
>>
>> What kind of data are you dealing with? PDF would indeed be an odd
>> format for
>> diffraction images, but it would be miles better than most of the
>> formats on
>> the list you point to.
>
> The operative word is "dataset", which is a subset of all things "data".
>
> A dataset should be in a format that
>
> 1. can be validated
> 2. is structured
> 3. is machine readable
Hello,
They should allow YAML: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAML
Then they will keep all the above and win an extra:
4. human readable
Which makes it way better than the ugly and verbose XML.
Regards,
F.
> A pdf file *guarantees* none of the above. It is a presentation format
> and is not optimized for validating, structuring, or ensuring the
> machine readability of the data that it might contain.
>
> I'm not advocating for any particular serialization format. So this
> isn't about JSON v. XML religion wars. This is JSON or XML versus a file
> format that is basically designed to ferry presentation information
> between printers or computer screens.
>
> James
>
|