quote:

---

I must admit to being confused by your anger. Your criticisms do not appear directed at the position that I took.

---

There is no anger on my part; frustration at the total lack of understanding? YES, but not anger.

quote:

---

There are simple, common sense rules built in to XML that do not come with CSV.

--The ability to nest records in a readable manner.

--The ability to specify and validate data format and types outside of the application code. (XML Schemas)

--The ability to specify that additional data or data fields can be transmitted, at any level, without affecting the receiving application. (Open specifications)

--The ability to specify character encoding (useful for languages that are not based on the Latin-1 character set).

Even X12 EDI doesn't do all of these things.

---

X12 EDI does not do these things because these are NOT functions of a transport mechanism. I don't need the transport mechanism to enforce any kind of integrity because it is enforced at the sender and at the reciever and the data is not modified en route.

You seem to not understand that as soon as you start to take on these functions you have a data model (good or otherwise) and you are performing data management. XQUERY, XML Schemas and all these other wonderous capabilities of XML that you seem so excited about ARE DATA MANAGEMENT functions!!! Now, if you are managing data with XML, once again, what is the sound logical foundation you are using?

I'll not argue the endless virtues of CSV files. It was just the most familiar example to give for demonstration purposes. But of course, any file used for data transmission MUST be accompanied by COMPLTETE and PRECISE documentation. In my article I argue, and common sense will show, that XML tags are not sufficient documentation in an of themselves. So, if your "self describing" format can't describe itself FULLY, why bother? In this context the tags become superfluous.

As for your example of the Dolphin. Cute, but totally inappropriate. You and others are constantly saying "XML is just for sharing data" and then turning around without even knowing touting its benefits as a data model.

I am trying to help people see:

1. The relational model is the only viable choice available today for data management.

2. XML is a bad choice for data management. And that many of the "most exciting" things being done with XML ARE data management functions.

3. XML isn't even a very good choice for data transmission. XML's self documenting features are wishful thinking at best and it's bloated.

As mdburr stated, all the benefits of XML are not due to XML itself, they are due to the bandwagon effect. And while there is something to be said for standards, XML is a bad one all the way around, so why support it?

Edited by - dcpeterson on 10/24/2003 10:31:51 AM