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

Re: Why XML?

• To: Matthew.Bennett@f...
• Subject: Re: Why XML?
• From: Paul Warren <pdw@d...>
• Date: 16 May 2003 12:45:06 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <OF1AE715F3.D4D85349-ONCA256D28.0001D5B4@f...>
• Organization:
• References: <OF1AE715F3.D4D85349-ONCA256D28.0001D5B4@f...>

I'm not sure this thread deserves much more input, but here goes:

On Fri, 2003-05-16 at 01:27, Matthew.Bennett@f... wrote:
> I appreciate XML's strengths re: markup, but I don't think it has much of a
> role in data exchange. Why would anyone use something as arcane as XML when
> flat files have worked perfectly well since .... whenever. Between
> 'trusted' parties, anyway.

One reason to use XML is a well-defined validation mechansim in XML
Schema.  No such mechanism exists for flat file formats.  For example, I
have seen a complex application designed in two halves with a single
message to exchange.  In this case the two parties are part of the same
product so there's no trust issue here at all.  The XML Schema was
agreed at an early stage and used as a contract for both halves of the
product to develop to and more importantly *test* against.

Compare this to a flat file format - sure, you can document the format
but you've then got to test it by hand.  Sounds like hard work to me.

> W3C has violated a
> first-order principle of language design; that there should only be one way
> of doing something, such that everyone ought to devise the 'same' program
> to solve the 'same' problem. 

I'd love to know where that's written down.  

The Perl motto is "There's more than one way to do it."

Academics may have something to say about the design of Perl, but few
will deny that Perl has proven to be an extremely useful tool in certain
situations.

Paul
-- 
Paul Warren, Client Services           DecisionSoft Limited
+44-1865-203192                        http://www.decisionsoft.com

• References:
  • Why XML?
    • From: Matthew.Bennett@f...

• Prev by Date: Re: DAML +OIL versus XML
• Next by Date: Re: One (jaundiced?) view of Microsoft's vision for XML
• Previous by thread: Re: Why XML?
• Next by thread: Re: Why XML?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread