Should XML quietly die?

[heinz]

XML is supposed to 'separate data from presentation and be humanly
readable'.
1) An XML file cannot accept many characters as data. eg " ; < all
have to be filtered. One or two lines of carefully selected data is OK
though. But not loads of real world data.
2) Its not so easy to make relations between 'tables'. A database does
it better
3) XPath is basically another version of SQL.
4) Much practical real world data is lots of text (eg news articles),
pictures (which is binary data) which xml cannot store easily.
5) Its often not very humanly readable, especially with complex
schemas.

So, I can understand why some are now skirting round XML.

[John Timney \(MVP\)]

I personally dont make a great deal of use of XML on prjects unless its the
clear and obvious choice for a piece of work, like passing webservice
datasets around between different systems. That said, my blog (based on
dasBlog) uses it very effectively and its great given someone else has
written all the methods to make it work without a database as deployment was
a five minute job - its been a great use of XML.

So, its like every other technology - if its has a use it has a place.

--
--
Regards

John Timney (MVP)
VISIT MY WEBSITE:
http://www.johntimney.com
http://www.johntimney.com/blog
"heinz" <bi******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

XML is supposed to 'separate data from presentation and be humanly
readable'.
1) An XML file cannot accept many characters as data. eg " ; < all
have to be filtered. One or two lines of carefully selected data is OK
though. But not loads of real world data.
2) Its not so easy to make relations between 'tables'. A database does
it better
3) XPath is basically another version of SQL.
4) Much practical real world data is lots of text (eg news articles),
pictures (which is binary data) which xml cannot store easily.
5) Its often not very humanly readable, especially with complex
schemas.

So, I can understand why some are now skirting round XML.

[Patrice]

Out of a particular context it is really hard to have a general opinion
about XML. IMO it was never intended to be a replacement for relational
databases as most of your points eems to imply. It is still usefull where
appropriate...

--
Patrice

"heinz" <bi******@gmail.coma écrit dans le message de news:
11**********************@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups. com...

XML is supposed to 'separate data from presentation and be humanly
readable'.
1) An XML file cannot accept many characters as data. eg " ; < all
have to be filtered. One or two lines of carefully selected data is OK
though. But not loads of real world data.
2) Its not so easy to make relations between 'tables'. A database does
it better
3) XPath is basically another version of SQL.
4) Much practical real world data is lots of text (eg news articles),
pictures (which is binary data) which xml cannot store easily.
5) Its often not very humanly readable, especially with complex
schemas.

So, I can understand why some are now skirting round XML.

[Mark Rae]

"Patrice" <sc****@chez.comwrote in message
news:eO****************@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Out of a particular context it is really hard to have a general opinion
about XML. IMO it was never intended to be a replacement for relational
databases as most of your points eems to imply. It is still usefull where
appropriate...

I agree. I never use XML as a replacement for a database, but it does have
its uses. Currently, I have three main uses for it:

1) webservices - bit of a no-brainer, as our friends from over the pond
might say...

2) connectivity with discrete systems e.g. it makes it really easy to
interface with Microsoft Great Plains through eConnect...

3) creating Office documents (Word, Excel & PowerPoint) when it's not
financially viable to use Aspose...

[Kevin Spencer]

XML is to data what System.Object is to the .Net Framework class library.
I'm not sure where you got your definition of XML, but the most salient
character in the acronym is the letter "X" (eXtensible). From the W3C
(http://www.w3.org/), XML is defined:

"Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a simple, very flexible text format
derived from SGML (ISO 8879). Originally designed to meet the challenges of
large-scale electronic publishing, XML is also playing an increasingly
important role in the exchange of a wide variety of data on the Web and
elsewhere."

In fact, XML is just the root specification of literally hundreds of Markup
Language Specifications that are used in all kinds of activities, such as
XHTML, XPath (a specification for naviagating XML documents), XQuery (a
specification for extracting data from XML documents and collections), XSD
(Schema definition Language), XSL and XSLT (Used for transforming XML
documents of any type to any other type of documents), XPROC (Xml
Piplelining language), SOAP, RSS, XFORMS, XLink, XAML, XBASE, and an
ever-expanding repertoire of others.

So, far from quietly dying, XML is thriving, growing, and expanding, for all
the right reasons.

That said, it should be used when appropriate, and not used when not
appropriate. How do you know when it is appropriate, and when it is not
appropriate? By understanding what it is, and what it is best used for.

--
HTH,

Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Ministry of Software Development
http://unclechutney.blogspot.com

I just flew in from Chicago with
a man with a wooden leg named Smith
who shot an elephant in my pajamas.
So I bit him.
"heinz" <bi******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@i42g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

XML is supposed to 'separate data from presentation and be humanly
readable'.
1) An XML file cannot accept many characters as data. eg " ; < all
have to be filtered. One or two lines of carefully selected data is OK
though. But not loads of real world data.
2) Its not so easy to make relations between 'tables'. A database does
it better
3) XPath is basically another version of SQL.
4) Much practical real world data is lots of text (eg news articles),
pictures (which is binary data) which xml cannot store easily.
5) Its often not very humanly readable, especially with complex
schemas.

So, I can understand why some are now skirting round XML.

[heinz]

OK - so XML has some good uses. I
should give up trying to store binary
data in it and use it for SOAP etc where
it works well.

[Mark Rae]

"heinz" <bi******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

OK - so XML has some good uses. I
should give up trying to store binary
data in it and use it for SOAP etc where
it works well.

IMO you shouldn't be using XML to "store" anything - the worst mistake you
can make with XML is to treat it as a replacement for a database...