[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> The point is important if you go making claims that "XML is
> self-describing" or "XML is better than X" or "XML will do this".
>
> The IT manager reads those phrases and thinks "jeez, this *is* a
> silver bullet", buys it, and then end up with it between the eyes.
The problem with that sort of person is not the hype around XML or
anything else. It's that they believe there is a silver bullet at all.
You could tell them your product is a text editor and they'd see an
industrial strength publishing system. Granted, marketing people often
supply the ammunition, but those sorts of wounds are self-inflicted.
> I agree that the way people use XML has benefits, but I honestly think
> it's an accident of history that XML became the golden child as it
> has, and not something else, like S-expressions. A lot of that has to
> do with hype, and a lot of confusion and disappoinment also has to do
> with hype.
A lot of it also has to do with simplicity, both perceived and actual.
S-expressions are not simple, at least not to the man on the street.
> My whole point is that XML is *nothing*. It's *just* syntax... and has
> no intrinsic meaning in and of itself.
Agreed, at least not any more than the sentence I'm writing here.
> That said, well-developed
> applications of XML *are* better than almost anything
> else....especially in terms of flexibility/evolution. I've been
> preaching that cautiously optimistic message for a long time...
And the silver bullet folks are taking another one between the eyes :)
-- Ron
|
