On Thu, 27 May 2004 administrator(_at_)yellowhead(_dot_)com wrote:
This XML controversy has gone on long enough, and I am tired of it.
Hear, hear!
catagory. They are distinct and separable records, and the use of tags
simply adds to their bulk. If someone could explain a here-and-now
I agree with this whole-heartedly. It sounds like marketing-speak to say
"SPF/CID is XML-enabled!" Managers like it because it sounds modern.
At work, I handle a lot of data files that are passed between different
applications and vendors. I guess the trade name for that is "EDI" but i
don't buy into the terminology. Anyway, all the vendors go on about
XML-this and XML-that these days, but when it comes down to getting real
work done, we still use character-delimited or positional flat files.
Everyone can agree on it and every system can more or less work with it.
And munging it into XML would server no purpose except to sell us new
tools, and then more storage for the now-bloated files, and even more
tools to effectively undo the XML and load it into the application.
So except when dealing with hierarchies of data, I kind of think it's a
crock to sell you crap you don't necessarily need or even want.
Now I might be too old-skool or something but it seems like using the
wrong tool for the job. Or at the very least, gross overkill. Tell us
how XML extensibility will actually benefit us in the long run and maybe
I'll think about it.
that there could be a future advantage is like using a cell phone to take
pictures; it's a gimmick that has nothing to do with the functionality of
the base product.
Perfect example. Camera-phones are to sell more phones and more expensive
services; the cell companies happily admit it. Squeeze 'em for every
penny you can get. The fact remains that the actual cameras suck and
are barely a passable subsitute for a $7 throwaway camera... yeah, it's
crude and unsexy but it still gets the job done more effectively.
--
#!/jameel/akari
sleep 4800;
make clean && make breakfast