RE: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box

["Mark Seaborne" <MSeaborne@origoservices.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@comcast.net]
Sent: 11 June 2002 13:47
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] W3C Schema: Resistance is Futile, says Don Box

>...

>So  you can see that .NET provides roundtripping translation of normal
>programming data types, and uses schemas, while the user does not see or
>touch schemas, wsdl, or even xml.

>If you do want to do part of this by hand, for example to connect to a
>service that was not created  by .NET, it may work but if it doesn't fit the
>scenarios that MS has provided for, it may not.

>Cheers,

>Tom P
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blimey! So the average .Net user has no direct control over (or understanding of?) any of the immensely, and overly complex stuff going on under the surface. How reassuring. 

XML, or rather the many subtle and diverse uses thereof, is getting far too complicated for me. I am going back to EDI. You know where you are with EDI; it looks horrible, but it is quite straight forward under the skin. XML is just the reverse; you get fooled into thinking, just nested angle brackets, how elegant, how simple; and then whoomph! some rascally person drops several tons of horrible complexity on your desk. Just so they can force you to buy expensive development tools, and a whole lot of other paraphernalia you never knew you needed, all to make it seem simple again.

Pah!

Mark Seaborne

P.S.

Actually, to be fair, that is exactly what vendors do with EDI too. But with EDI they have the advantage that it looks horrible to your average manager, and so they automatically assume it must be hard and expensive to use, and are thus easier to over-charge.