OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Painful USA Today article (was RE: [xml-dev] ANN: RESTTuto

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

XML is easy.  XML systems are hard. 
The problem is to find really compelling 
reasons to use XML systems although 
XML as a serialization format is useful 
out of the box.
Statements guaranteed to raise ire and 
laughter but are nonetheless true if you 
don't want to be the front penguin (and 
remember, other penguins push the front 
penguins into the water):

1.  Avoid XML native databases.  Immature.

2.  ASP is not dead.

3.  ODBC is not dead.

4.  Relational db + script Print-to-file statements 
    are not dead.

5.  If you understand scripting and item 4, you 
    can avoid XSLT.

6.  If you are using a relational db, you probably 
    don't need XML Schema, RNG, and so on other 
    than as a contract item.  You already have a 
    schema.  Just document it.

7.  HTML still works.  XHTML is overkill.

8.  SVG is fun.  JPGs still work.

9.  Given 4, you may not need XML.

10. SOAP is ok.  RPC is ok.  The Web has risks 
    but HTTP tunnels through firewalls so how 
    can you beat that for a commodity protocol?

What is the simplest practical XML system for 
your application?  Can you do it and avoid 
XML systems?  Is SML enough (in lots of cases, 

Figure out which applications of XML are buying 
you stuff you can't do with stuff you already 
know how to use and have.


From: John Evdemon [mailto:jevdemon@acm.org]

Perhaps one of the missions of the New XML group [1] can be to better 
clarify the public's perception of what is XML and what is merely an 
application of XML syntax.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS