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

Re: What is XML For?

• To: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Subject: Re: What is XML For?
• From: tblanchard@m...
• Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 22:09:31 +0100
• Cc: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>, "'The Deviants'" <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <3DC00B06.4080402@p...>

On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 05:38  PM, Paul Prescod wrote:

> When people (like TBlanchard) say they want to send "smart objects" 
> rather than "dumb data" this is precisely what they are proposing. Not 
> "applets" but Java or Smalltalk objects. And it is because they don't 
> understand the POLP.

POLP?  I'm not too good with alphabet soup so you'll have to spell it 
out.

Its a misconception to say I want to "send" objects. Within my 
enterprise, I want to use objects for my application architecture.  
Much of what I object to is the use of XML as the *basis* for 
applications.  I'm seeing propaganda that says you should keep all your 
data in xml and render it to html via xslt.  I don't agree.  Objects 
are a better fit for application development.  Even web apps.  The 
scripting mentality has infected that domain in a big way.

If I'm interacting with people outside my sphere of influence, doing 
data exchange, I want to send reasonably structured data files which 
are serialized graphs (which realistically need be no more complicated 
than PLists).

XML, IMNAAHO, has too many bells whistles, buzzers, and gadgets, for 
the basic job of structured data exchange.  And they're heaping more 
crap on it every day.  What practicing developer can possibly keep up 
with this stuff?

Whats the payoff if one does?

Not too good I think.

• References:
  • Re: What is XML For?
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Article: "The horror of XML"
• Next by Date: Character Entities: An XML Core WG View
• Previous by thread: Re: Xml to HTML using XSL kinda tricky
• Next by thread: Re: What is XML For?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread