dcr-type=xml versus dcr-type=iwov

I am doing a migration from TS5.5 to 6.7.1 on Windows The legacy DCTs (dcr-type=iwov) and DCRs work fine when I migrate them to 6.7.1.

I am wondering what the benefits of using the new dcr-type=xml type will be except for the latest features like Tab and customer-defined type DCRs. Using the new dcr-type=xml will involve rewriting all DCTs, TPLs and converting existing DCRs to a new structure.

What are some of the cons of using dcr-type=iwov down the road?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

RajatChopra

I am doing a migration from TS5.5 to 6.7.1 on Windows The legacy DCTs (dcr-type=iwov) and DCRs work fine when I migrate them to 6.7.1.

I am wondering what the benefits of using the new dcr-type=xml type will be except for the latest features like Tab and customer-defined type DCRs. Using the new dcr-type=xml will involve rewriting all DCTs, TPLs and converting existing DCRs to a new structure.

What are some of the cons of using dcr-type=iwov down the road?

Start by searching through the forums and the technical Library.

dcr-type=iwov does not give you a proper XML strucuture as it works with Key value pairs so XPATH notation is rendered useless. Also, XML is the way IWOV is going. If I am not mistaken, it is only kept for legacy purposes and all new development should be on xml type dcr's.

nipper

I am doing a migration from TS5.5 to 6.7.1 on Windows The legacy DCTs (dcr-type=iwov) and DCRs work fine when I migrate them to 6.7.1.

What are some of the cons of using dcr-type=iwov down the road?

I do all of my NEW development in XML mode. That is my preference and I think it is easier to work with. Since I do a non trivial amount of regular XML work as well, the tools, regex etc that I write is more easily ported between projects.

That being said, I doubt I would change a legacy project from IWOV style to XML style. The LOE would certainly be significant and the payback marginal.

HTH

Andy