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

Re: KML is very extensible ... but why?

• From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
• To: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>
• Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:15:34 +0100

>How many of those 6000 bespoke dmbs are because no-sql key value stores were not available, in the relationshipal monoculture that dbms vendors promote 

In the case of HR systems at the Pentagon, I would think it's highly likely that many are pre-relational.

(I just got my monthly Fujitsu pension payslip in the post, and noticed that it's in the same format, on the same stationery apart from a change of logo, as the payslips that ICL was giving me in 1977. I bet that means it's basically the same software churning it out every month. And why not?)

Michael Kay
Saxonica

• References:
  • KML is very extensible ... but why?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>
  • Re: KML is very extensible ... but why?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • Re: KML is very extensible ... but why?
    • From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
  • Re: KML is very extensible ... but why?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • Re: KML is very extensible ... but why?
    • From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
  • Re: KML is very extensible ... but why?
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au>