[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Painful USA Today article (was RE: ANN: RESTTuto
XML is easy. XML systems are hard. The problem is to find really compelling reasons to use XML systems although XML as a serialization format is useful out of the box. Statements guaranteed to raise ire and laughter but are nonetheless true if you don't want to be the front penguin (and remember, other penguins push the front penguins into the water): 1. Avoid XML native databases. Immature. 2. ASP is not dead. 3. ODBC is not dead. 4. Relational db + script Print-to-file statements are not dead. 5. If you understand scripting and item 4, you can avoid XSLT. 6. If you are using a relational db, you probably don't need XML Schema, RNG, and so on other than as a contract item. You already have a schema. Just document it. 7. HTML still works. XHTML is overkill. 8. SVG is fun. JPGs still work. 9. Given 4, you may not need XML. 10. SOAP is ok. RPC is ok. The Web has risks but HTTP tunnels through firewalls so how can you beat that for a commodity protocol? What is the simplest practical XML system for your application? Can you do it and avoid XML systems? Is SML enough (in lots of cases, yes)? Figure out which applications of XML are buying you stuff you can't do with stuff you already know how to use and have. len From: John Evdemon [mailto:jevdemon@a...] Perhaps one of the missions of the New XML group [1] can be to better clarify the public's perception of what is XML and what is merely an application of XML syntax.
|
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
|