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] Integration Models (WAS RE: [xml-dev] parser models)

[ 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.


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 


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

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