Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...] > > From: Derek Denny-Brown [mailto:derekdb@m...] > > >Given the amount of time I spend explaining 'simple' Namespace, XPath, > >XSD, DTD, etc.. issues to people, I would fall heavily on the 'not easy' > >side of the issue. > > XML is easy. XML + the dozens of application languages that make up > an XML system are hard. If one does simple things with XML, one still XML is easy, so long as using XML means picking your XML tools/libraries off the shelf and using them. The problem I run into is that so many people (here) have the NIH syndrome, and would rather write their own XML library than use an existing one. > >Convincing your average developer that standards > >conformance is like pulling teeth. > > Too low a level. You are herding cats. The sensitive spot > in the system is the chain from RFP to Contract. This is where > systems are cited. The weakness in that chain as evidenced by > the RDDL and Negotiation threads is there is no credible source > that can be cited for reliable systems meeting criteria such > as you begin to describe (well-formed). That is why firms > such as Microsoft DO achieve lock-in and why I say that some > of the W3C and other XML leaders cannot fathom this, but in > fact, use tactics that make that lock-in inevitable. Unless > the RFP and contracts personnel can cite by formal identifier, > solid standards (not specifications for systems development), > fairly mindlessly, the result is that they cite vendor-specific > systems which they are certain meets these requirements. It is > an issue of who does what kind of work and what level of understanding > is needed to efficiently do that work. Proposal writers and > contracts specialists, as you say, aren't XML-Devers. (that > is why I have a job...). You come from the Mil/Gov Contract world, where everything is tightly spec'd and conformance to spec is often more important than performance/ship-date. In the consumer product world, the norm is the exact reverse. When I switched worlds it was quite a shock to see how common practice really is incredibly different. Talking/Working with developers and their leads is the only level of contact I have. (Next time Bill Gates asks me over for lunch I'll talk to him about it... <g>) My angle is to work the grass-roots side of things, since I can get a fellow developer to listen to my arguments much more easily than I can his manager's manager. Lock-in is inevitable, no matter what you do. If you want to use the latest technology, or squeeze the best performance out of an application, you _need_ to use tailored integration. In the real world does not provide any other solution. Look at databases. Databases standardized on SQL. Does that mean I can move my payroll app from Oracle to DB2 in a weekend? Not even close. The key to XML is not it's ability to avoid lock-in. It is it's ability to facilitate interop, and loosely coupled systems. Once these systems are all put together, you still need tailored pieces to swap in and out of the puzzle, but you _can_ swap them in an out. -derek
|
