[
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,
yes)?
Figure out which applications of XML are buying
you stuff you can't do with stuff you already
know how to use and have.
len
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.
|
