Re: XML vs. databases

In article <hkgbkt09pdnl466dtdmokp612li0rv5cle_at_4ax.com>, Mark Preston says...
>
>Actually, Richard, its a piece of cake (just the same as updating any
>other tree-based structred file). But that does _not_ make them good
>as databases and they are specifically quite poor as RDMS systems
>since they are fundamentally object-based.

Rather, some object people are searching an employment under dumb template language shelter.

>>
>>The biggest problem is typing. Databases support concepts
>>such as dates, times, numbers, etc. xml doesn't.
>>
>You are not really aware of all that XML can do. If you use Schema to
>define the XML, it will validate and ensure consistency for dates (in
>several forms), times (in several forms) numbers, strings and a great
>many other data types as well. Even if you don't use Schema or DTD to
>define the structure and just use the "raw" XML format then you can
>stilll use any type of data that you like (it just means that the
>software that handles it has to do the type checking).

The question is if people like XSL/DTD programming. Being neither elegant, nor powerful I doubt many would do.

>Here is the fundamental flaw in your argument - an XML document is a
>document and makes sense as long as it is well-formed.

Ambiguty, ambiguity, ambiguity. In how many ways one could express the same thing in XML? Received on Sun Jul 22 2001 - 01:33:49 CEST