RE: Why XML for Messaging?
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 01:54:27PM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >> Now that's the bid. Still, no one has answered why I need >> pointy brackets for that given comma-delimited ascii worked >> just as well and is smaller. >It's not self-describing? (unless you have headers and then you >have to separate them from the data).... That's ok. Most systems make the assumptions the initial lines are the headers and when not, make a messy database entry so have to be inspected. The same happens if the database schema is not determined apriori for the XML transform or the XML is not a basic row column structure. Trust but verify. XML as a 'self-describing' format is limited to cases for which all ends already share a vocabulary. >It doesn't handle sub-structure? Most database dumnps don't need >substructure, though... Yep. Messages are not reports. >There are better tools for handling XML, both at API level and >at user/data level? No. There are better syntaxes than XML for messaging. >Interoperability means being general, means being less specific, >means in general not being the best for the job at hand, but >good enough, but good enough for lots of jobs is sometimes >better than perfect for only one job. Interoperability means two different systems can invoke operations without negotiation. Portability means two systems can handle data without negotiation. Good enough for most jobs means a solution can fail catastrophically on operations for which it is not good enough. I can hammer a screw, but I can't screw a hammer. Still we are arguing generalities. Why XML for messaging? len
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format