|
[EDI-L Mailing List Archive Home]
[Message List]
[Reply To This Message]
RE: X12 vs: XML File Sizes
Um, sounds like we're comparing apples, avocados and hasty pudding.
Dang--put data into a data stream and it fills right up. 8-)
Best regards,
Bill Chessman
Inovis(tm), Inc. (formerly Harbinger and Extricity)
(But that's just my opinion...8-) )
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Lehrhoff [mailto:
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:27 PM
To: OLIVOLA Peter
Cc:
Subject: Re: [EDI-L] X12 vs: XML File Sizes
Apple pie tastes as good as apples; apple pie is larger than apples and
weighs more than apples.
X12, because of it's implied data structure, is leaner and meaner than
XML. Doh! HIPPA is a porker too, compared to traditional
wholesale/distribution EDI. I can name that 850 in six or seven
segments. I'll wait while you attempt to stuff a minimum-filled 837.
OLIVOLA Peter wrote:
> Try to keep up with the conversation, Brian. The issue is X12 vs. XML
data
> volume. In that context XML qualifies as a serious porker.
>
> Peter G. Olivola
> Effective Data, Inc.
> 1515 E. Woodfield Rd.
> Suite 770
> Schaumburg IL 60173
> 847 969 9300
> 708 829 3185 (cell)
> 847 969 9350 (fax)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Lehrhoff [mailto:
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 4:35 PM
> To: OLIVOLA Peter
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [EDI-L] X12 vs: XML File Sizes
>
> XML isn't a pig; it's a free-form data transfer application. It's X12
> one better in the wild, wild west. The structures can be as simple or
> complicated as you want to make them, and the tag names can be as long
> or short as you can tolerate. I won't provide an example unless pushed.
> So far, xml structures have nuked the GSTPA initiative, threatened to
> kill OMGEO and have caused SWIFT to speak very quietly about their
> announced conversion in two years.
</snip>
|
 |
Subscribe in XML format
| RSS 2.0 |
|
| Atom 0.3 |
|
|
Cart
