Lists Home |
Date Index |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan Murphy" <email@example.com>
To: "Dennis D." <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] XML websites
> I've been working on XML based websites for a number of years for my
> employer. I've done a number of projects, from simple REST service type
> applications, to web sites that use one or two XML documents as
> datasources, to web sites that are through and through XML+XSL.
'to web sites that are through and through XML+XSL'
Are these intranets, or can I take a peek?
I'm learning XML from the XMLSpec up. My previous websites have been a
The promise of XML is that it is a set of technologies that will replace all
of that. So, some 5+ years later I have yet to see a website cooked entirely
out of XML technologies (exempt XHTML because it is really HTML5), as if
everyone is waiting for Eve Maler to write a schema.
> My question is... Why are you so interested in making everything so XML
Simplicity. Let's get on with it. I have a library full of obsolete
technologies which represent wasted time. I'm much more interested in
researching and developing content. Yet the medi(a/um) has consumed 50% of
my time with little quirks like the browser wars. We all know where this is
going. All of the XML technologies are going to be wrapped into one tight
little package. Meanwhile, the software companies will attempt to soak
developers for the hundreds of versions along the way, while doubling the
size of my obsolete collection.
For example, billions of dollars later Microsoft has yet to produce a
completely integrated office suite. They are feeding on XML now with IBM,
SUN and others. I don't want to wait 5 more years for this technology to
unfold. If it's going to end up on a network, the Internet, then by now
there should be a working model. If not now then soon. I'm not looking for
an XML layer. I'm looking for the eXtensible Markup Language that does what
it has promised, simply, cheaply, and effectively as one package without
relying on a list of related acronyms.
Here's an idea: Take the left column of the homepage of W3C and squish it
down to one acronym. Call it XML.
>You should only use XML if you need it, and right now you've not really
given us a good explanation of WHY you need it.
The marketing teams at the software companies are doing a fine job of
pushing web services. I'm an integration advocate. Here's a scenerio: a
business. I want a singular fully automated computer system that contains
all aspects of the business from personnel and finance to marketing,
logistics, operations, and outward to the consumer. This system needs to be
able to talk to all internal processes at all branches of the corporation,
and to external clients and vendors. What do we have now? We have 10
different systems approaching 10 discrete problems. We have different
platforms, different languages, personnel staffing related to each
technology, and on and on. From the user standpoint, users who are being
asked to multitask and cross-train, each 'layer' produces a dynamic stress
level that is not additive but geometric. Further, the scope of system
integration is ripping at the fabric of the core business, namely the
budget. So where is XML? It seems to be stuck in a layer, when it should be
the company cookbook for all things automated.
Lakewood, WA, USA