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

RE: XML=WAP? And DOA?

• To: "Jens Jakob Andersen, PDI" <jens.jakob.andersen@p...>
• Subject: RE: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• From: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@b...>
• Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:38:04 +0200
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcGc8nTdf8AhbavRQGKRrbTOhDrGrQACHfLQAADUlqA=
• Thread-topic: XML=WAP? And DOA?

I think the summary of what's wrong about XML (and SGML) is that it is
conceptually incompatible with the rest of mainstream technologies.
XML's hierarchical model (not to mention abstract XML models that go
beyond the hierarchical boundaries) does not fit to relational DBs and
procedural programming (thus far). So, either we cripple XML in our apps
to be able to handle it easily, or mess a mess out of our XML handling
code/storage (which, BTW today, goes through so much useless
transformations and runtime modifications so that it wont break Mr. X's
code). What XML needs is (as I have heard a number of times on this
list) a high level dynamic API.

High level, to stop worrying about elements and attributes and focus on
the actual abstract meaning of the contents.
Dynamic, to provide an efficient memory representation and run time
handling of the XML data, meaning their abstract representation, not the
one that just mirrors nodes.

The problem is that to (possibly) achieve such high level handling, we
have to hit metaprogramming techniques (meaning, the API should be aware
of the abstractions via an *abstraction* schema language)... Which of
course may make things worse (while another schema language may be the
last thing we need right now).

Manos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jens Jakob Andersen, PDI [mailto:jens.jakob.andersen@p...] 
> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 3:00 PM
> To: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: SV:  XML=WAP? And DOA?
> 
> 
> Hi all
> 
> I find this interesting and enlightning.
> 
> To draw some early conclusions:
> 
> 1. One of the largest benefits of XML, is that is has 
> generated a hype wave. This hype wave enables us to talk 
> about XML with likeminded, sell fun projects to our 
> customers, and get to travel to interesting conferences.
> 
> 2. XML in itself is no more advanced than CSV. (Well, maybe a 
> bit more, but not revolutionary.)
> 
> 3. XML is not easy. It is easy to write a XML document, but 
> when you begin to work with DOM, SAX, XSLT etc. it gets complex.
> 
> 4. No technology is a silverbullet that will save the world 
> and mankind.
> 
> 5. I think that XML is still in many areas trying to find a 
> place to live between SGML, HTML and RPC, and not really 
> fullfilling any of the needs.
> 
> JJ
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • taking XML seriously (was RE: XML=WAP? And DOA?)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Next by Date: SV: SV: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Previous by thread: RE: XML=WAP? And DOA?
• Next by thread: taking XML seriously (was RE: XML=WAP? And DOA?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread