[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
HTML/JavaScript/ASP/ODBC/relationalDB is common too.
What they want to know IS "better vs other" because
it is a monstrous expense to shift product lines,
customers, customer working processes, and all that
entails for "other".
The problem is momentum. Having one vendor in a market
shift to XML doesn't burst the Nash equilibrium for the
market if the advantages accrued are not significant.
No rules change, so no new strategies emerge. The market
will keep on keeping on. HTML/HTTP changed the rules not
because they were common but because they could become
common at light speed; IOW, simple enough to learn that
any idiot could and every idiot did. They got just
enough bang that the buck was worth spending, and then
a siphon hose effect that lead to what we have now was
begun. But as anyone who ever had to siphon gas can
tell you, the slope of the hose is a problem and continually
restarting it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
There has to be a compelling and easily seen advantage
to the document model. Otherwise, it is just "other".
The ideas that "it is thin, it is in; it is web, so it
is good" are fading fast.
len
From: Paul Brown [mailto:prb@fivesight.com]
I think too many people spend time arguing "new, better" versus "other" when it comes to XML (be that markup or related models). The point is definitely *not* better or even different; the point is *common*.
-- Paul
|
