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

Re: More Stupid XML Articles

• From: Dmitri Pavlenkov <dmitripavlenkov@y...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 16:58:29 -0700 (PDT)

> Now  *I*  will  *really* quote the paragraph which
> you
> are criticizing and then I will be glad to get any
> sound answer from you.
> 
And *I* will gladly oblige.
> Even I'm not Dvorak ( I know a bit of XML buzzwords
> better than
> Dvorak knows ),  but I almost agree with the point
> he is making.
> 
> <q>
> There are no universal vocabularies, so each XML
> promoter just does things its own way.
> "Our way is the best!" The next company over, of
> course, is doing XML differently. For a
> large company that subscribed to the methodology of
> company A and spent millions of
> dollars to do so, it will be frustrating when, for
> some unknown reason, the company B
> approach becomes universal and a true standard.
> Nobody knows what to do about this. Death
> of simplicity.
> </q>
> 
> Please, tell me what do you mean saying  "I know
> what to do about this" ?
> 
> What exactly do you know ?

So each XML promoter does things his own way? Isn't
anybody promoting something does things his own way?
What are we really talking about here? The real
subject is the control and exchange of information.
How was it done before? Before it was done through
what we call now "legacy systems". I spent several
years converting outdated legacy format into new
legacy formats. How long before these "new" legacy
formats become outdated or need to be translated into
another legacy format? Doesn't "legacy" strike fear in
your heart?
I just looked in the dictionary
(http://www.webster.com). The word "legacy" means
basically inherited property. So a legacy system is a
proprietary system that authors worked on for many
years, improving it and diverging from standards if
there were any in the first place.
And now we come to the present XML. The diverisity of
emerging XML standards cannot be underrated, yes,
you're right there. Diversity is the legacy of
competition, it is not up to us. Now, let me ask you
this: how much easier is it to convert legacy formats
than to convert XML? I'll give you this straight: not
easier at all. A lot harder! You can spend a month
writing C code to translate CAT COBOL tables (medical
database) into MediWin Paradox (another medical
database) (and you have to, if you don't have source
code, and have no clue about COBOL anyway), and a day
writing XSLT to translate one XML format into another
(no matter how different they are). When you say it is
a death of simplicity, I say it is a death of
complexity that is involved when trying to bridge
legacy systems.
Therefore, I know what to do when some other company's
XML standard becomes wide-spread instead of mine. I'll
just write XSLT :^)



=====
Dmitri Pavlenkov

ComputerAge Inc.
Ft. Myers, Florida, USA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Dvo WAS: Stupid XML Articles
    • From: David DS Barnes <d.d.barnes@i...>
  • Re: More Stupid XML Articles
    • From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@q...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Who will maintain SAX?
• Next by Date: Re: More Stupid XML Articles
• Previous by thread: Re: More Stupid XML Articles
• Next by thread: Re: More Stupid XML Articles
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread