[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Bad Business (was Re: advocating XML)

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: David Megginson <david@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:10:50 -0600

Close.   A competent manager listens to the 
customer, reads the RFPs and counts requests 
for functionality.  They understand the 
mix of products they are providing and 
the means by which they meet requirements.  
Counting requests, when they go above some 
threshhold, they plan to implement new 
functionality.  They are knowledgeable about 
the changes in the technology they provide 
and have anticipated the convergence of 
changes.  They don't dismiss technologies 
out of hand; they understand how each 
technology affects the other.  The idea 
that was the "failure" last year becomes 
the "success" a year later when the environment 
in which it is implemented changes (cheap 
fast processors implementing cache memory 
+ cheap disk drives and cheap RAM = XML). 
It's a long ride from the lab to the street.

Then they look around their staff and decide 
who gets to be the first penguin in the water.  
They do that about a year before they need 
the functionality so they can if they have 
to make a few mistakes off Broadway.

CSV works fine for lots of transactions that 
have smooth edges.   To justify markup, look 
at the pipeline and the lifecycle.

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: David Megginson [mailto:david@m...]

This is a strange thread -- I'll admit to not having read every
posting, but why *should* anyone want to go out and advocate XML where
it might not be needed?

If comma-delimited does everything someone wants, then it makes sense
to stick with it.  If the person later wants to do stuff that
comma-delimited makes too hard (nested/recursive structures, optional
and repeatable fields, partly self-describing format, structural
validation, markup mixed into a text stream, etc.) then, and only
then, does it make sense to come and talk with us, the XML community.

There's no point anticipating those problems -- a competent manager
should wait until they actually come up.  Paying the high cost of a
transition to XML (or any other shiny new technology) early and up
front when it might never be needed is bad business.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Bad Business (was Re: advocating XML)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: advocating XML
• Next by Date: RE: typing (was RE: Personal reply)
• Previous by thread: [ANNOUNCE] XML Cooktop 2.1 beta
• Next by thread: RE: Bad Business (was Re: advocating XML)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread