Re: XML: The good, the bad, and the ugly

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 21:57:16 GMT, Bernard Peek <bap_at_shrdlu.com> wrote:

>In message <cjsldr$vui$1_at_news.netins.net>, Dawn M. Wolthuis
><dwolt_at_tincat-group.comREMOVE> writes
>
>
>>XML isn't brain surgery, but it is likely to make a significant impact that
>>really does advance the state of B2B software
>
>I've used XML in a situation where it did provide real benefits. When
>the received data failed to validate it got bounced by the machine and
>never even reached a human. At a stroke that ended most of the arguments
>about whose job it was to fix malformed data files.

There shouldn't really be an argument about it. If the data file is invalid (whatever format it's in) it's the responsibility of the creator of the file to fix it. A receiving system can't reasonably be expected to guess what the data should have said.

Having said that, I guess it's easier to spot certain types of malformed XML, simply because the structure of the data is made explicit in the file in the form of tags. OTOH the malformation is in XML itself; If the XML validates, that says nothing about the quality of the data within it. The point is you still have to write exactly the same validation routines that you would have had to write if the file was delivered in a flat file, csv or even in a deck of cards, but with the additional overhead that when using XML you also have to validate the delivery medium.

Lemming

-- 
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.