Comments on: XML: Too much of a good thing?

Explosion of special-interest XML dialects could mean the standard is a success or could be the start of a new headache.

[Vader1809]

Too many XML "standards"

I agree, there are way too many XML "standards" around. In order for the use of XML to overtake the use of previous standards there must be a consolidation in each sector's use of XML to one standard. Without this, XML will still be too difficult to use because each user will have to translate it to every other user's specification, defeating the purpose and ease of use XML can bring to industries.

The Tower is Falling! The Tower is Falling!

How many human dialects are there? We still manage to do business and have a very complex civilization to show for it.

XML is just bits on the wire. It isn't the best design one could come up with, but it improved over the original inventor's work. There is no news content in this article.

[alek_nedic]

use of XML

http://www.analogstereo.com/vacuum/miele_vacuum_performance.htm

This article misses the point

XML is not a standard for exchanging information, it's a template for creating application specific messaging standards.

In order to exchange data, standard application data field definitions have to be agreed upon. Eg. what exactly do I mean by my "TimeStamp" and "OrderId". You do that by creating a "Document Type Definition" (DTD)

To call each instantiation of XML a "dialect" is just wrong and confusing. They're all just different DTD's within the XML standard.

The only thing I've read so far that makes sense

I found the lack of even the most basic understanding of XML in this article very disturbing. Your comments on this are the only ones that have made some sense so far.

Schemas are not "dialects" or "flavors" of XML. XML is a language to mark up documents, basically, it defines the STRUCTURE of what information looks like. A Schema (or DTD) is a particular instance of a document type, it gives the structure a MEANING. In other words, XML tells you how what an element is '<'>' (<tag-name>), for example. A schema fills in the tag name and defines it relation to other tags. So, you might have a schema that defines <paragraph> and the rules for what a paragraph contains.

Now, what about more than one schema for the same topic area? Lets say 6 schemas for music notation. This is potentially redudant, but possibly not depending on the scope of what the schema is trying to solve. At any rate, it is a moot point because of the related XML standard called XSL (I won't get into XSL versus XSLT, I'll keep it simple). XSL is a stylesheet language that allows one to transform one XML document to any other kind of output (another XML document, HTML, plain text, etc etc etc). This means you can write a stylesheet to translate schema A to schema B. So, in our music example, XSL allows you to say something like <note> in schema A translate to <ANote> in schema B. Moreover, you could even create an XSL that would translate some music schema into an actual music format to play on your computer.

Also note that both the Schema definition language itself as well as XSL are both XML! XML is how information is structured. Schema defines that structure and XSL defines how to translate from one format to another.

[Stan Johnson]

Just the way MOST things go

This is just the way things go. The Tower of Babble is exactly what happens with things that are open and free. They cannot by their nature it comply to strict standards (its too easy not to). When it gets too complex something new will be there to replace it. I guess things like XML give the Microsoft's of the world great advantage. It's amazing to watch.

XML for robots/Knowledge

So it will XML, defining the attributes of all ojects in the world ,following a Object oriented method can be useful for any System or program to derive or get useful information of all things(objects).

the last XML standard need to Made is for Human Behavior...(its too dangerous Systems will predict our behavior)

[Johnny Mnemonic]

That is the whole point

As I recall, the XML standard was designed to more
easily allow a diversity of knowledge representation.
The "semantic web" is an example of extending the old
hypertext idea to encompass actual knowledge that can
more easily be shared. One can imagine a time where
this would allow a system to grow and aquire
knowledge by simply plugging in. The diversity of
DTD's is necessary in order to find a data
representation that might be used for this
purpose.

[xbhatti]

WebServices is facing the same problem of increasing complexity

XML was suppose to be simple, a carrier of data and some logic. It has become way too complicated for an average IT user. This wiki page [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?XmlSucks] has some discussion around various merits/demerits.

On a different note, same thing is happening with WebServices--Uncontrolled Proliferation of Specifications'. See my blog entry at http://www.khaitan.org/mt/archives/000020.html which touches this topic briefly.

[alek_nedic]

various merits/demerits

http://www.analogstereo.com/vacuum/miele_vacuum_cleaning.htm

What Am I Missing Here?

The article seems to suggest that XML is a way of standardizing communications by diversifying communications. At one point it even suggests XML is the Lingua Franca. I once thought the point was that HTML was the Lingua Franca ... at least it was until Microsoft came along with their own non-conforming version that I lovingly call MSML.

It seems to me that having 5000+ variations of a communications standard will make things LESS compatible and LESS standardized.

It's like allowing anyone on the planet to make up custom languages so that we can all learn to communicate with each other. ***?

What am I missing?


- Sheldon

[jwhirsch]

Anybody ever use EDI?

XML is just the lastest and greatest version...

I like XML better, but it is STILL EDI.

[alek_nedic]

it is STILL EDI

http://www.analogstereo.com/vacuum/miele_vacuum_convenience.htm